Legal Opinion

Loredo v. Gipson

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided March 21, 2016No. 13-16283Published

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM **

Joe Loredo appeals the district court’s denial of his federal habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253(c). We affirm.

1. The state court’s conclusion that the 2010 amendment to California Penal Code § 2933.6 does not violate the Ex Post Fac-to Clause was not contrary to clearly established federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); Nevarez v. Barnes, 749 F.3d 1124, 1128-29 (9th Cir.2014) (per curiam) (holding that the Supreme Court’s ex post facto precedents do not clearly establish that amended…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Lopez v. SmithSupreme Court of the United States · 2014
  2. Doe v. HarrisCalifornia Supreme Court · 2013
  3. Doe v. HarrisCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2011
  4. Manuel Nevarez v. Ron BarnesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2014
  5. Antonio Hinojosa v. Connie GipsonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2015

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API