Larry Rosser v. Matthew Cate

Ninth Circuit

Larry Rosser v. Matthew Cate

490 F. App'x 77

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 4, 2013

Docket12-55242

StatusUnpublished

This text of 490 F. App'x 77 (Larry Rosser v. Matthew Cate) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Larry Rosser v. Matthew Cate, 490 F. App'x 77 (9th Cir. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Larry Rosser appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

Rosser contends that there was no evidence to support the finding of the senior hearing officer that he was guilty of violating Cal.Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3006(a), and, therefore, subject to the loss of 181 days of sentence credit. We review de novo the district court’s denial of Rosser’s petition. See Parker v. Small, 665 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir.2011) (per curiam). The finding that an altered razor blade was found in Rosser’s cell constituted “some evidence” in support of the conclusion that Rosser was guilty of violating section 3006(a). See Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455, 105 S.Ct. 2768, 86 L.Ed.2d 356 (1985). Accordingly, the state court decision denying Rosser’s claim was neither contrary to, nor based upon an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 409, 412-13, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000).

We construe Rosser’s additional arguments as a motion to expand the certificate of appealability. So construed, the motion is denied. See 9th Cir. R. 22 — 1(e); Hiiva-la v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir.1999) (per curiam).

Rosser’s motion to take judicial notice, filed on July 9, 2012, is granted.

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Larry Rosser appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

Rosser contends that there was no evidence to support the finding of the senior hearing officer that he was guilty of violating Cal.Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3006(a), and, therefore, subject to the loss of 181 days of sentence credit. We review de novo the district court’s denial of Rosser’s petition. See Parker v. Small, 665 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir.2011) (per curiam). The finding that an altered razor blade was found in Rosser’s cell constituted “some evidence” in support of the conclusion that Rosser was guilty of violating section 3006(a). See Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455, 105 S.Ct. 2768, 86 L.Ed.2d 356 (1985). Accordingly, the state court decision denying Rosser’s claim was neither contrary to, nor based upon an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 409, 412-13, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000).

We construe Rosser’s additional arguments as a motion to expand the certificate of appealability. So construed, the motion is denied. See 9th Cir. R. 22 — 1(e); Hiiva-la v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir.1999) (per curiam).

Rosser’s motion to take judicial notice, filed on July 9, 2012, is granted.

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

490 F. App'x 77, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/larry-rosser-v-matthew-cate-ca9-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack