FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 21 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL JOSEPH WHITE, No. 07-16811
Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. CV-05-03212-FJM
v.
MEMORANDUM *
DORA B. SCHRIRO; et al.,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Frederick J. Martone, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 5, 2010 **
Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Michael Joseph White appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
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).
White contends that the Arizona Department of Corrections violated his due
process rights by determining that he was not entitled pursuant to Arizona law to
the deduction of good-time credits. However, the Arizona superior court did not
unreasonably apply clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme
Court by concluding that White had failed to demonstrate that he had a liberty
interest in the application of these credits. See Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215,
226 (1976); see also Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 558-59 (1974).
To the extent that White contends that the rule of lenity applies, this
contention fails. The record reflects that the Arizona state court concluded that the
legislative scheme is unambiguous, and this court is bound by the state court’s
interpretation of its laws. See Mitchell v. Esparza, 540 U.S. 12, 17 (2003); see also
Himes v. Thompson, 336 F.3d 848, 852 (9th Cir. 2003). Because the rule of lenity
is appropriate only where there is statutory ambiguity, it does not apply in this
case. See United States v. Johnson, 529 U.S. 53, 59 (2000).
AFFIRMED.
2 07-16811