FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 16 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JESSE JOSEPH VASQUEZ, No. 09-16903
Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:08-cv-00685-JAM
v.
MEMORANDUM *
JAMES A. YATES, Warden, et al.,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 8, 2011 **
Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Jesse Joseph Vasquez appeals from the district
court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
Vasquez contends that the state court violated his due process rights by
*
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).
allowing his conspiracy sentence to be enhanced on the basis of a jury drug-weight
finding that did not require Vasquez’s knowledge of the specific drug weight
involved.
Under California law, drug conspiracy sentences may be enhanced on the
basis of weight allegations found true by a jury without a showing of the
defendant’s actual knowledge of the quantity of drugs involved, as long as the jury
is instructed on the necessity of finding the defendant’s “substantial involvement”
in the planning, direction, execution, or financing of the conspiracy and its
objective and makes a finding that the weight allegation is true. See Cal. Health &
Safety Code § 11370.4(a)(5) (West 2002); People v. Chevalier, 70 Cal. Rptr. 2d
482, 485 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997). Neither this California sentencing provision nor the
state court’s decision affirming its application in this case is contrary to or an
unreasonable application of any clearly established Supreme Court precedent. See
28 U.S.C. § 2254; Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 409 (2000). Contrary to
Vasquez’s assertion, nothing in Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640 (1946),
requires a contrary result.
AFFIRMED.
2 09-16903