Thomas Brower v. BRIAN BELLEQUE, Superintendent, OSP

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
THOMAS BROWER,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
BRIAN BELLEQUE, Superintendent,
OSP,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 08-35391
D.C. No. 6:06-cv-01273-ALA
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Ann L. Aiken, Chief District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 5, 2010**
Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Oregon state prisoner Thomas Brower appeals from the district court’s
judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
FILED
APR 16 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-35391 2
Brower contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because
his state trial attorney did not inform him that he was pleading guilty to two ninety-
month sentences to be served consecutively. The state court’s factual
determination that Brower understood that he was pleading to 180 months was not
unreasonable “in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.” 28
U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2). Moreover, the state court’s conclusion that Brower had failed
to establish that counsel was ineffective was not “contrary to, or . . . an
unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the
Supreme Court of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). See Strickland v.
Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984); see also Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 59
(1985).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --