Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Douglas Akira HIRANO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-09-23
Citations: 294 F. App'x 313
Docket Number: No. 06-16808
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Douglas Akira HIRANO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 294
Pages: 313–315

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Douglas Akira HIRANO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-16808.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 8, 2008 .
Filed Sept. 23, 2008.
Michael K. Kawahara, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney PJKK Federal Building, Honolulu, HI, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Douglas Akira Hirano, Big Spring, TX, pro se.
Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN and N.R. 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
Douglas Akira Hirano appeals pro se from the district court's judgment denying as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 2253. We review de novo, United States v. Chacon-Palomares, 208 F.3d 1157, 1158 (9th Cir.2000), and we affirm.
Hirano contends that his sentence was imposed in violation of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), and Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13, 125 S.Ct. 1254, 161 L.Ed.2d 205 (2005). We affirm because the new rules of constitutional law that he purports to rely upon have not been made retroactive by the Supreme Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255; see also Dodd v. United States, 545 U.S. 353, 358, 125 S.Ct. 2478, 162 L.Ed.2d 343 (2005); United States v. Cruz, 423 F.3d 1119 (9th Cir.2005) (per curiam).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid ed by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.