22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T46d,MEMORANDUM California state prisoner Demetrious Lonzell Green 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. Green contends that the California trial court violated his Sixth Amendment rights pursuant to Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 , 124 S.Ct. 2531 , 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), and Cunningham v. California, 549 U.S. 270 , 127 S.Ct. 856 , 166 L.Ed.2d 856 (2007), by imposing an upper-term sentence based on judicially-determined facts. Because the trial court relied on at least one permissible factor in enhancing Green’s sentence, the California Court of Appeal’s decision rejecting this claim was neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1); see also Butler v. Curry, 528 F.3d 624, 643 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 129 S.Ct. 767 , 172 L.Ed.2d 763 (2008). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T49f,

MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Demetrious Lonzell Green 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.

Green contends that the California trial court violated his Sixth Amendment rights pursuant to Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 , 124 S.Ct. 2531 , 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), and Cunningham v. California, 549 U.S. 270 , 127 S.Ct. 856 , 166 L.Ed.2d 856 (2007), by imposing an upper-term sentence based on judicially-determined facts.

Because the trial court relied on at least one permissible factor in enhancing Green’s sentence, the California Court of Appeal’s decision rejecting this claim was neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1); see also Butler v. Curry, 528 F.3d 624, 643 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 129 S.Ct. 767 , 172 L.Ed.2d 763 (2008).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.