Craig Dawson v. Brian Belleque
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
' Appellant Craig Dawson appeals the district court’s order denying his habeas corpus petition. We affirm.
To begin, the record fails to show that the Board impermissibly applied the 1993 rules to Board Action Form No. 5. The Board had the authority under the 1985 rules to set a parole supervision term at 36 months, and its failure to give reasons does not prove that the Board used the 1993 rules. Thus, it is unclear Dawson actually faced any increase in punishment.
Even assuming the possibility of an increase in punishment, the Oregon state court’s decisions regarding Dawson’s habe-as petitions are entitled to deference under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d). The Supreme Court has held that state court decisions that do not contain any reasoning are entitled to a prer sumption that the state court adjudicated the case on the merits. Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 , 131 S.Ct. 770, 784 , 178 L.Ed.2d 624 (2011). Because Dawson has not demonstrated that the state court decisions fall within an exception set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1) or (d)(2), the presumption applies in this case.