Melvin Wickerware v. R. Hill

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
MELVIN WICKERWARE,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
R. HILL,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 10-17799
D.C. No. 4:10-cv-01690-PJH
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Phyllis J. Hamilton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 27, 2011**
Before: HAWKINS, SILVERMAN, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Melvin Wickerware appeals pro se the district court’s judgment denying his
28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition, challenging the state court’s use of a 1993 federal bank
robbery conviction to enhance his 2007 sentence for a California robbery
conviction. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
FILED
OCT 05 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

To the extent appellant seeks to expand the certificate of appealability, the1
request is denied. See 9th Cir. R. 22-1(e); see also Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d
1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir. 1999) (per curiam).
10-17799 2
The district court properly summarily denied Wickerware’s petition as it
plainly appears from the face of the petition that he is not entitled to relief. See
Boyd v. Thompson, 147 F.3d 1124, 1127-28 (9th Cir. 1998); Rules Governing
Section 2254 Cases R. 4; see also Lackawanna County Dist. Attorney v. Coss, 532
U.S. 394, 403-04 (2001) (“[o]nce a state conviction is no longer open to direct or
collateral attack in its own right because the defendant failed to pursue those
remedies while they were available (or because the defendant did so
unsuccessfully), the conviction may be regarded as conclusively valid.”); Daniels
v. United States, 532 U.S. 374, 382 (2001) (“If...a prior conviction used to enhance
a federal sentence is no longer open to direct or collateral attack in its own right
because the defendant failed to pursue those remedies while they were available (or
because the defendant did so unsuccessfully), then that defendant is without
recourse.”). 1
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --