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:T517,ORDER Hamilton, pro se, has applied for authorization to file a subsequent petition in district court. We deny authorization for two reasons: A final judgment imposing sentence has not been entered in his case. Phillips v. Vasquez, 56 F.3d 1030 (9th Cir.1995), relied on by Hamilton, does not apply to his case. The extreme delay in the California Supreme Court’s review of Phillips’ sentence is not this case. Hamilton’s sentence had been under review by the California Supreme Court for less than two years when his latest federal habeas petition was lodged. Secondly, Hamilton does not allege that he is entitled to relief under a new law made retroactive by the Supreme Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (b)(2)(A) (West 1997). Therefore, under section 2244(b)(2)(B), Hamilton must make a prima facie showing that: See 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (b)(2)(B) (West 1997); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (b)(3)(C) (West 1997); Woratzeck v. Stewart, 118 F.3d 648, 650 (9th Cir.1997). We have concluded, after careful review of all pleadings and exhibits filed, that Hamilton has failed to make a prima facie showing that he has complied with both requirements of section 2244(b)(2)(B) for any claim. Accordingly, his pro se application for authorization to file a subsequent petition in district court is DENIED.24:T537,

ORDER

Hamilton, pro se, has applied for authorization to file a subsequent petition in district court. We deny authorization for two reasons:

A final judgment imposing sentence has not been entered in his case. Phillips v. Vasquez, 56 F.3d 1030 (9th Cir.1995), relied on by Hamilton, does not apply to his case. The extreme delay in the California Supreme Court’s review of Phillips’ sentence is not this case. Hamilton’s sentence had been under review by the California Supreme Court for less than two years when his latest federal habeas petition was lodged.

Secondly, Hamilton does not allege that he is entitled to relief under a new law made retroactive by the Supreme Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (b)(2)(A) (West 1997). Therefore, under section 2244(b)(2)(B), Hamilton must make a prima facie showing that:

See 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (b)(2)(B) (West 1997); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (b)(3)(C) (West 1997); Woratzeck v. Stewart, 118 F.3d 648, 650 (9th Cir.1997). We have concluded, after careful review of all pleadings and exhibits filed, that Hamilton has failed to make a prima facie showing that he has complied with both requirements of section 2244(b)(2)(B) for any claim.

Accordingly, his pro se application for authorization to file a subsequent petition in district court is DENIED.