Case Name: Isadore H. HENRY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Arthur CALDERON, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-07-15
Citations: 139 F. App'x 872
Docket Number: No. 03-56538
Parties: Isadore H. HENRY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Arthur CALDERON, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, RAWLINSON and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 139
Pages: 872–873

Head Matter:
Isadore H. HENRY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Arthur CALDERON, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 03-56538.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 11, 2005.
Decided July 15, 2005.
Sung B. Park, Esq., Van Nuys, CA, Stephen M. Lathrop, Esq., Rolling Hills Estates, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.
Michael C. Keller, Esq., Office of the California Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before: SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, RAWLINSON and BYBEE, 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 state prisoner Isadore H. Henry appeals the district court's judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging his bench trial conviction and sentence for a series of "follow-home" robberies.
Henry contends that his waiver of a jury trial was not knowing and voluntary as required by the Sixth Amendment. See Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389, 400, 113 S.Ct. 2680, 125 L.Ed.2d 321 (1993). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253. For the reasons stated in the relevant portions of the Magistrate Judge's May 16, 2003 Report and Recommendation, we affirm the district court's determination that Henry's waiver did not constitute a violation of the Sixth Amendment.
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.