Ruben W. Espinoza v. Stephen F. Pontesso, Warden

992 F.2d 1219 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Ruben W. ESPINOZA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Stephen F. PONTESSO, Warden, et al., Respondents-Appellees. No. 92-55948. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted March 10, 1993. * Decided May 3, 1993. Before WALLACE, Chief Judge, and FARRIS and BRUNETTI, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Ruben W. Espinoza appeals pro se the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. He contends that the district court erred by (1) denying his claim that the state courts' delay in deciding his direct appeal deprived him of due process, and (2) finding that he had failed to exhaust state remedies on his claim of sentencing error. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 . We review de novo, Norris v. Risley, 878 F.2d 1178, 1180 (9th Cir.1989), and affirm. 3 Espinoza was convicted of second degree burglary and sentenced to three years imprisonment. He filed a direct appeal on November 15, 1990.…