Benny Dixon v. James A. Thomas Grant Woods, Attorney General

45 F.3d 435 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Benny DIXON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. James A. THOMAS; Grant Woods, Attorney General, Respondents-Appellees. No. 94-16145. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Dec. 19, 1994. * Decided Dec. 28, 1994. Before: SNEED, D.W. NELSON, and TROTT, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Benny Dixon, an Arizona state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254 habeas petition. Dixon contends that the district court erred in denying his petition: (1) without ruling on his motion for summary judgment, and (2) because his sentence was improperly calculated under Arizona law. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2253 . We review de novo, Hendricks v. Zenon, 993 F.2d 664, 668 (9th Cir.1993), and affirm. 3 Dixon contends that the district court erred in denying his petition without ruling on his motion for summary judgment. This contention lacks merit because the district…