Harris

MEMORANDUM *

Eric Lamont Harris (“Harris”) appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . Harris argues that his due process rights were violated when the sentencing judge considered uncharged conduct and assigned, in an arbitrary and capricious manner, Harris’s crime the highest Crime Seriousness rating under Oregon law. He also argues that the Oregon Racketeering Influenced & Corrupt Organizations Act (“ORICO”), under which he was convicted, is unconstitutionally vague. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253, and we affirm.

Because Harris’s case is governed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), we may only grant relief if the last reasoned decision of the state courts “was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1). 1 Harris’s first argument—that the state court violated his due process rights by fixing his sentence on the basis of conduct neither charged in the indictment nor proven to a jury—has been proeedurally defaulted because he did not…