Freddie Wright v. D. Dexter

Filing 920081014

Opinion

Download PDF
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FREDDIE WRIGHT, Petitioner, v. D. DEXTER, Warden, Respondent. No. 08-73272 ORDER Filed October 14, 2008 Before: Kim McLane Wardlaw, William A. Fletcher and Johnnie B. Rawlinson, Circuit Judges. ORDER The application for authorization to file a second or successive 28 U.S.C. 2254 habeas corpus petition in the district court is denied. Petitioner has not made a prima facie showing under 28 U.S.C. 2244(b)(2) that: (A) the claim relies on a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable; or (B)(i) the factual predicate for the claim could not have been discovered previously through the exercise of due diligence; and (ii) the facts underlying the claim, if proven and viewed in light of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable fact finder would have found the applicant guilty of the underlying offense. 14465 14466 WRIGHT v. DEXTER Petitioner asserts that the district court should vacate his sentence because it was imposed in violation of Cunningham v. California, 549 U.S. 270 (2007). We have held that Cunningham "did not announce a new rule of constitutional law." Butler v. Curry, 528 F.3d 624, 639 (9th Cir. 2008). Therefore, Cunningham cannot form the basis of an application for a second or successive 28 U.S.C. 2254 habeas corpus petition. No petition for rehearing or motion for reconsideration shall be filed or entertained in this case. See 28 U.S.C. 2244(b)(3)(E). DENIED. PRINTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE--U.S. COURTS BY THOMSON REUTERS/WEST--SAN FRANCISCO The summary, which does not constitute a part of the opinion of the court, is copyrighted 2008 Thomson Reuters/West.

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?