NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 29 2010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
AUGUSTINE PENA-SILVA, No. 08-17637
Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:06-cv-02682-ALA
K. PROSPER, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California
Arthur L. AlarcÃ³n, Circuit Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 13, 2010**
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Augustine Pena-Silva appeals 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.
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).
Pena-Silva contends that his Sixth Amendment rights were violated pursuant
to Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296
(2004), and Cunningham v. California, 549 U.S. 270
(2007), when the state trial court engaged in fact-finding to impose an
At sentencing, the trial court made the findings that Pena-Silva was on
parole at the time of the crimes and that his prior adult convictions were numerous
and of increasing seriousness. The California Court of Appeal's rejection of Pena-
Silva's Sixth Amendment claim based on the prior conviction exception under
Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224
(1998), was not "contrary to,
or . . . an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as
determined by the Supreme Court." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). See Kessee v.
Mendoza-Powers, 574 F.3d 675
, 678-79 (9th Cir. 2009).
Because, under Kessee, the state court's interpretation of the prior conviction
exception "does not contravene AEDPA standards," id. at 678, Pena-Silva's
challenge to the district court's harmless error analysis is moot.
[End Page 2 08-17637]