Opinion ID: 167986
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: im pr ope r e nha n c em ent

Text: The magistrate judge recommended rejecting M r. Bolton’s improper- enhancement claim on the ground that a misapplication of state law cannot support federal habeas relief. W e agree. “W e will not second guess a state court’s application or interpretation of state law on a petition for habeas unless such application or interpretation violates federal law.” Bowser v. Boggs, 20 F.3d 1060, 1065 (10th Cir. 1994). And to the extent that M r. Bolton is arguing based on Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U .S. 466 (2000), that his federal due-process rights were violated by the allegedly improper enhancement based on his prior convictions, the argument is without merit. See United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 231 (2005) (“W e held [in Apprendi]: ‘Other than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.’” (emphasis added)). Additionally, insofar as M r. Bolton is asserting an equal-protection claim, he has offered no factual or legal support, nor even a coherent argument on the point. No reasonable jurist could dispute the district court’s denial of this claim.