Case Name: Thomas N. MERIWEATHER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Manfred MAASS, Superintendent of Oregon State Penitentiary, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-04-16
Citations: 32 F. App'x 973
Docket Number: No. 01-35375; D.C. No. CV-96-00570-TC
Parties: Thomas N. MERIWEATHER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Manfred MAASS, Superintendent of Oregon State Penitentiary, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 32
Pages: 973–973

Head Matter:
Thomas N. MERIWEATHER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Manfred MAASS, Superintendent of Oregon State Penitentiary, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 01-35375.
D.C. No. CV-96-00570-TC.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 8, 2002.
Decided April 16, 2002.
Before BROWNING, KLEINFELD, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, appellant’s motion for oral argument is denied.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Thomas Meriweather, an Oregon state prisoner, appeals the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, we review a district court's denial of a petition for writ of habeas corpus de novo, Bonin v. Calderon, 59 F.3d 815, 823-24 (9th Cir.1995), and we affirm.
Meriweather contends that the Supreme Court's ruling in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), is a new rule of constitutional law applicable to his sentence retroactively pursuant to Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 310-11, 109 S.Ct. 1060, 103 L.Ed.2d 334 (1989). Meriweather's contention is foreclosed by this court's recent decision in United States v. Sanchez-Cervantes, 282 F.3d 664, 667 (9th Cir.2002) (concluding that Apprendi does not apply retroactively to cases on collateral review).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.