Case Name: Lee W. DAVIS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Anthony C. NEWLAND, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-08-13
Citations: 104 F. App'x 659
Docket Number: No. 03-16856; D.C. No. CV-00-0079-FCD/JFM
Parties: Lee W. DAVIS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Anthony C. NEWLAND, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, RAWLINSON and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 104
Pages: 659–660

Head Matter:
Lee W. DAVIS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Anthony C. NEWLAND, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 03-16856.
D.C. No. CV-00-0079-FCD/JFM.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 9, 2004.
Decided Aug. 13, 2004.
Lee W. Davis, Soledad, CA, pro se.
Daniel J. Broderick, Appointed Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Sacramento, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.
Stephen Herndonm, Office of the California Attorney General, Department of Justice, Sacramento, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, RAWLINSON and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
California prisoner Lee W. Davis appeals the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition challenging his guilty-plea conviction for voluntary manslaughter. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
Davis contends that he was induced to plead guilty by the state's promise that he would be eligible to earn up to 20% of his sentence in custody credits. However, because state law limited custody credits to a maximum of 15% of Davis' sentence, he contends that the state breached the plea agreement and that his plea was not knowing and voluntarily made.
Because this court may not grant habeas relief unless the state court's decision denying these claims was contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law, as determined by the United States Supreme Court, we affirm. See Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 56, 106 S.Ct. 366, 88 L.Ed.2d 203 (1985) (stating the Constitution does not require the state to furnish the defendant with information regarding parole eligibility for the defendant's guilty plea to be voluntary).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.