Case Name: Willie BROWN, aka Terry Louis, aka Willie Lee Brown, aka Willie Moore, Petitioner-Appellee, v. A.A. LAMARQUE, Warden, Respondent-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-11-10
Citations: 80 F. App'x 605
Docket Number: No. 02-56196; D.C. No. CV-01-00245-DDP (JTL)
Parties: Willie BROWN, aka Terry Louis, aka Willie Lee Brown, aka Willie Moore, Petitioner—Appellee, v. A.A. LAMARQUE, Warden, Respondent—Appellant.
Judges: Before B. FLETCHER, RYMER, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 80
Pages: 605–605

Head Matter:
Willie BROWN, aka Terry Louis, aka Willie Lee Brown, aka Willie Moore, Petitioner—Appellee, v. A.A. LAMARQUE, Warden, Respondent—Appellant.
No. 02-56196.
D.C. No. CV-01-00245-DDP (JTL).
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 6, 2003.
Decided Nov. 10, 2003.
Willie Brown, pro se, Soledad, CA, for Petitioner-Appellee.
Steven T. Oetting, Teresa Torreblanca, AGCA—Office of the California Attorney General, San Diego, CA, for Respondent Appellant.
Before B. FLETCHER, RYMER, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
The state appeals the district court's judgment granting California state prisoner Willie Brown's petition for writ of habeas corpus. Brown, who is incarcerated, appears pro se. We reverse.
This case is governed by section 2254(d)(1) of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). Since the district court rendered its judgment, the United States Supreme Court decided Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 123 S.Ct. 1166, 155 L.Ed.2d 144 (2003), and Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11, 123 S.Ct. 1179, 155 L.Ed.2d 108 (2003). Lockyer and Ewing make it clear that the California Court of Appeal's decision upholding Brown's sentence was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court. Accordingly, habeas relief is inappropriate and the judgment must be reversed.
REVERSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.