Case Name: Shepard SANDERS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jill BROWN, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-02-16
Citations: 167 F. App'x 631
Docket Number: No. 04-16611
Parties: Shepard SANDERS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Jill BROWN, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before: FERNANDEZ, RYMER, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 167
Pages: 631–632

Head Matter:
Shepard SANDERS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Jill BROWN, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 04-16611.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 13, 2006.
Decided Feb. 16, 2006.
Shepard Sanders, Correctional Training Facility North Facility, Soledad, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.
Violet M. Lee, DAG, Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before: FERNANDEZ, RYMER, 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
Shepard Sanders appeals pro se from the district court's judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2258, and we affirm.
Sanders contends that use of his prior nonjury juvenile adjudication to enhance his sentence under California's Three Strikes law violated his constitutional right to due process. This contention fails. The California court's decision to use Sanders' prior juvenile adjudications as predicate offenses in calculating his Three Strikes is not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); Boyd v. Newland, 393 F.3d 1008, 1017 (9th Cir.2004) (holding that the California courts' use of Petitioner's juvenile adjudication as a sentencing enhancement was not contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, Supreme Court precedent).
The request to broaden the scope of the certificate of appealability is denied. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); 9th Cir. R. 22-l(e).
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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.