Norberto G. Vides v. James D. Hartley

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).
AH/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NORBERTO G. VIDES,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
JAMES D. HARTLEY,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 07-56012
D.C. No. CV-06-06619-JVS
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
James V. Selna, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 16, 2010**
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Norberto G. Vides appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition challenging the
FILED
MAR 03 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

AH/Research 07-56012
failure by the Board of Prison Terms (“Board”) to set a parole release date. We
have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
Vides contends that the Board violated his rights to equal protection and due
process when it failed to give him a parole release date. The state court’s decision
rejecting Vides’ claims was neither contrary to, nor involved an unreasonable
application of, clearly established Supreme Court law. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1);
see also Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 61, 67-68 (1991).
Vides also contends that the Board’s failure to set a parole release date
constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
Vides is not entitled to habeas relief on this claim because Vides failed to
demonstrate that his fifteen-years-to-life sentence is grossly disproportionate to his
second-degree murder offense. Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 72 (2003).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --