Jason G. Van Norman v. Dora B. Schriro;

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).
EH/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JASON G. VAN NORMAN,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
DORA B. SCHRIRO; et al.,
Respondents - Appellees.
No. 07-16678
D.C. No. CV-06-01808-DGC
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
David G. Campbell, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 15, 2009**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Arizona state prisoner Jason G. Van Norman appeals from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
FILED
JAN 11 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

EH/Research 07-16678 2
Van Norman contends that his aggravated sentence was imposed in violation
of the Sixth Amendment because the trial court relied on judge-found aggravating
factors to sentence him above the presumptive sentencing range. Because the state
trial judge relied on one permissible factor in enhancing Van Norman’s sentence,
the Arizona Court of Appeals’ decision rejecting this claim was neither contrary to,
nor an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254(d)(1); see also Butler v. Curry, 528 F.3d 624, 643 (9th Cir. 2008).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --