NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DEC 02 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
WILLIAM M. ESTEY, No. 13-36223
Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 6:12-cv-01430-CL
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JEFF PREMO, Superintendent; STATE
OF OREGON,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Ann L. Aiken, Chief District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 21, 2014**
Portland, Oregon
Before: CLIFTON, M. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
William M. Estey appeals the denial by the district court of his 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1291 and 2253, and 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).
1. A federal court can only grant habeas relief to a state prisoner if a state court
decision “was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly
established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.”
28 U.S.C § 2254(d)(1). An unreasonable decision is one that is “so lacking in
justification” that it is “beyond any possibility for fairminded disagreement.” White
v. Woodall, 134 S. Ct. 1697, 1702 (2014) (quoting Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct.
770, 786–87 (2011)).
2. Estey has not established that the decision of the Oregon Court of Appeals
rejecting his double jeopardy claim was unreasonable.1 Estey was aware from the
outset that his sentence was 225 months, and could not legitimately have believed that
any alleged ambiguity in the written judgment changed the oral sentence. The state
court’s determination that the trial court did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause
by amending the written judgment to clearly conform to the oral sentence was not
unreasonable.
AFFIRMED.
1
The Oregon Court of Appeals rejected Estey’s double jeopardy claim without
discussion. However, if after an independent review of the record this court finds the
decision of the state court reasonable, there can be no relief under § 2254(d). See
Greene v. Lambert, 288 F.3d 1081, 1088–89 (9th Cir. 2002).
2