Taylor v. Hamlet

Opinion

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 29 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ALONZO L. TAYLOR, No. 08-15042

Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. CV-03-00592-MMC

v. MEMORANDUM * JIM HAMLET,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Maxine M. Chesney, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 16, 2010 **

Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Alonzo L. Taylor appeals from the district court’s

order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

* 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).

EOH/Research Taylor contends that the district court erred when it determined that he

entered his guilty plea knowingly and voluntarily. Any error that may have

occurred in failing to notify Taylor of the mandatory restitution fine did not have a

“substantial and injurious effect or influence” on the outcome of the case. See

Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 637 (1993).

AFFIRMED.

EOH/Research 2 08-15042