Norris

MEMORANDUM ***

Melvin Norris appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. *199 § 2254 . Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not restate them.

(1) Norris asserts that his right to due process of law was violated when the Oregon Supreme Court failed to apply the rule of lenity in interpreting Or.Rev.Stat. § 163.105, the murder statute under which he was convicted.

In reviewing the denial of a habeas corpus petition, “[w]e are bound by a state’s interpretations of its own laws.” Himes v. Thompson, 336 F.3d 848, 852 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing Souch v. Schaivo, 289 F.3d 616, 621 (9th Cir.2002)). We therefore defer to the Oregon Supreme Court’s interpretation of Oregon law. In this case, the Oregon Supreme Court determined that the statute’s meaning is clear and that it required the reduction of only one of Norris’s two life sentences upon a finding that he was capable of rehabilitation. Because the rule of lenity is appropriate only where there is statutory ambiguity, it is inapplicable in this case. United States v. Johnson, 529 U.S. 53, 59 , 120 S.Ct. 1114 , 146 L.Ed.2d 39 (2000). The Oregon Supreme Court’s…