Ramona Holderman 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
RAMONA HOLDERMAN,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
DORA B. SCHRIRO; et al.,
Respondents - Appellees.
No. 07-17292
D.C. No. CV-06-03016-SMM
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Stephen M. McNamee, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 16, 2010**
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Arizona state prisoner Ramona Holderman appeals from the district court’s
judgment dismissing her 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
FILED
MAR 05 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

EH/Research 07-17292 2
Holderman contends that her aggravated sentence violates the Sixth
Amendment because the trial court relied on judge-found aggravating factors to
sentence her above the presumptive sentencing range. Because the state trial judge
relied on at least one permissible factor in enhancing Holderman’s sentence, the
Arizona Supreme Court’s 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).
Holderman also contends that her due process rights were violated when the
trial judge failed to give her notice that he would consider certain aggravating
factors. The district court did not err in dismissing this claim as unexhausted and
procedurally defaulted. See Beaty v. Stewart, 303 F.3d 975, 987 (9th Cir. 2002).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --