Case Name: Antonio COCA, aka Anthony Alvaras, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Dwight NEVEN, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-03-26
Citations: 372 F. App'x 725
Docket Number: No. 08-16428
Parties: Antonio COCA, aka Anthony Alvaras, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Dwight NEVEN, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 372
Pages: 725–725

Head Matter:
Antonio COCA, aka Anthony Alvaras, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Dwight NEVEN, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 08-16428.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 16, 2010.
Filed March 26, 2010.
Antonio Coca, Indian Springs, NV, pro se.
Dennis Cavanagh Wilson, Senior Deputy Attorney General, Office of the Nevada Attorney General, Las Vegas, NV, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Nevada state prisoner Antonio Coca appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2258, and we affirm.
Coca contends that the state court violated the legal principles articulated in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), because it considered facts other than the fact of his prior convictions when it sentenced him pursuant to Nevada's habitual criminal statute, Nev.Rev.Stat. § 207.010. Coca's arguments are squarely foreclosed by Tilcock v. Budge, 538 F.3d 1138, 1143-45 (9th Cir.2008).
Coca further contends that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the state court's alleged Apprendi error. Because Coca's underlying Apprendi argument fails, Coca cannot meet his burden under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).
Coca's letter, received in this court on February 26, 2010, is deemed filed and is denied as moot.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.