Hugo MacHuca v. Theo White, Warden John Gillis, Chairman California Board of Prison Terms and Paroles Attorney General State of California

98 F.3d 1346 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Hugo MACHUCA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Theo WHITE, Warden; John Gillis, Chairman; California Board of Prison Terms and Paroles; Attorney General State of California, Respondents-Appellees. No. 95-17038. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Oct. 7, 1996. * Decided Oct. 10, 1996. Before: BEEZER, KOZINSKI, and KLEINFELD, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Hugo Machuca, a California state prisoner, appeals the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. The district court denied Machuca's petition after concluding that the application of a 1982 California amendment deferring Machuca's parole suitability hearing for two years did not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 . We review de novo, Calderon v. Prunty, 59 F.3d 1005, 1008 (9th Cir.1995), and affirm. 3 Machuca contends that the district court erred by determining that…