Case Name: Alonzo L. TAYLOR, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jim HAMLET, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-03-29
Citations: 372 F. App'x 749
Docket Number: No. 08-15042
Parties: Alonzo L. TAYLOR, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jim HAMLET, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 372
Pages: 749–750

Head Matter:
Alonzo L. TAYLOR, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jim HAMLET, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 08-15042.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 16, 2010.
Filed March 29, 2010.
Frank Bell, Esq., Law Office of Frank Bell, Redwood City, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.
Glenn R. Pruden, Esq., Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
California state prisoner Alonzo L. Taylor appeals from the district court's order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2258, and we affirm.
Taylor contends that the district court erred when it determined that he entered his guilty plea knowingly and voluntarily. Any error that may have occurred in failing to notify Taylor of the mandatory restitution fine did not have a "substantial and injurious effect or influence" on the outcome of the case. See Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 637, 113 S.Ct. 1710, 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.