Demetrious Lonzell Green v. K. PROSPER, Warden

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).
DAT/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DEMETRIOUS LONZELL GREEN,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
K. PROSPER, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 08-55576
D.C. No. 2:05-cv-08759-JVS
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
James V. Selna, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 16, 2010**
Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Demetrious Lonzell Green appeals pro se 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
MAR 31 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

DAT/Research 08-55576 2
Green contends that the California trial court violated his Sixth Amendment
rights pursuant to Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004), and Cunningham v.
California, 549 U.S. 270 (2007), by imposing an upper-term sentence based on
judicially-determined facts.
Because the trial court relied on at least one permissible factor in enhancing
Green’s sentence, the California Court of Appeal’s decision rejecting this claim
was neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, clearly established
federal law as determined by the Supreme Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); see
also Butler v. Curry, 528 F.3d 624, 643 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 767
(2008).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --