Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
- Rechtsrecherche mit Zugriff auf über 1 Million Quellen
- Dokumentenautomatisierung
- Mandatsverwaltung
- Gehostet in der EU und der Schweiz
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
11-15035•Ronald Hurst v. ROSANNE CAMPBELL, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CALIFORNIA
11-15035Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit05.10.2011
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
RONALD HURST,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
ROSANNE CAMPBELL, Warden;
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
CALIFORNIA
Respondents - Appellees.
No. 11-15035
D.C. No. 2:06-cv-00858-RSL
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Robert S. Lasnik, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 27, 2011**
Before: HAWKINS, SILVERMAN, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Ronald Hurst 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
OCT 5 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS
-- 1 of 2 --
11-15035 2
Hurst contends that his upper-term sentence violates his rights under the
Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments because it was based on aggravating facts that
were not found by a jury beyond a resonable doubt. He further contends that the
district court erred by failing to rule on this claim.
The California Court of Appeal’s determination that Hurst’s upper-term
sentence is constitutional because it is based on the fact of his prior criminal
convictions was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly
established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254(d)(1); Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). Hurst’s
contention that the district court failed to rule on this claim is belied by the record.
We construe Hurst’s additional arguments as a motion to expand the
certificate of appealability. So construed, the motion is denied. See 9th Cir. R.
22-1(e); Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir. 1999) (per curiam).
AFFIRMED.
-- 2 of 2 --
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.