Case Name: Roy Junior MARKS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Dora B. SCHRIRO; et al., Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-11-04
Citations: 298 F. App'x 611
Docket Number: No. 05-16591
Parties: Roy Junior MARKS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Dora B. SCHRIRO; et al., Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before: HAWKINS, RAWLINSON, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 298
Pages: 611–611

Head Matter:
Roy Junior MARKS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Dora B. SCHRIRO; et al., Respondents-Appellees.
No. 05-16591.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 28, 2008.
Filed Nov. 4, 2008.
Roy Junior Marks, Buckeye, AZ, pro se. Robert L. Ellman, Esq., Office of the Arizona Attorney General, Phoenix, AZ, for Respondents-Appellees.
Before: HAWKINS, RAWLINSON, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Roy Junior Marks, an Arizona state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition challenging his sentences of seventeen and one-half years for aggravated assault. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
We conclude that the district court did not err when it determined that Marks's first claim was procedurally defaulted. See Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 111 S.Ct. 2546, 115 L.Ed.2d 640 (1991).
We also conclude that the district court did not err when it determined that Marks's sixth claim was not cognizable on federal habeas review. See Badea, v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir.1991).
The motion for appointment of counsel and the motion to appear and argue the merits of the case are denied.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.