Barry Simon Jameson v. James A. Yates

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BARRY SIMON JAMESON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
JAMES A. YATES,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 07-56423
D.C. No. CV-06-05758-CAS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Christina A. Snyder, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 25, 2010**
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Barry Simon Jameson appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
FILED
JUN 17 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

We certify this issue for appeal on our own motion.1
07-56423 2
Jameson contends that he has a due process entitlement to be released from
prison after serving a determinate portion of his sentence of 17 years to life.1
However, Jameson received an indeterminate life sentence and was not entitled to
release after service of a determinate term. See Board of Pardons v. Allen, 482
U.S. 369, 375-79 (1987); In re Dannenberg, 34 Cal.4th 1061, 1078 (Cal. 2005).
Thus, the California court’s rejection of this claim was neither contrary to nor an
unreasonable application of federal law. To the extent Jameson challenges the
California courts’ interpretation of California state law, such a claim is not
cognizable on federal habeas review. See, e.g., Middleton v. Cupp, 768 F.2d 1083,
1085 (9th Cir. 1985).
We construe Jameson’s motion for permission to file exhibits as a request
for judicial notice and grant the request.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --