Everett Reedy v. Jean Hill

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 14 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EVERETT V. REEDY, No. 08-35188
Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 04-CV-00525-MRH
v.
MEMORANDUM *
JEAN HILL,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Michael R. Hogan, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 25, 2010 **
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Oregon state prisoner Everett V. Reedy appeals from the district court’s
judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
The district court dismissed the petition, among other reasons, because it
was untimely. Reedy contends that his petition was timely under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2244(d)(1)(C) because he filed it within one year of the Supreme Court’s
decision in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004). This argument lacks
merit because Reedy’s conviction and sentence became final before Blakely was
decided. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(C); see also Schardt v. Payne, 414 F.3d 1025,
1038 (9th Cir. 2005) (concluding that the new rule announced in Blakely does not
apply retroactively to a conviction and sentence that were final before that decision
was announced).
In light of this disposition, we do not reach Reedy’s contention that he
has a constitutional right to a unanimous jury verdict.
To the extent that Reedy contends that he received ineffective assistance of
counsel, we construe Reedy’s briefing as a motion to expand the certificate of
appealability. So construed, the motion is denied. See 9th Cir. R. 22-1(e); see also
Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir. 1999) (per curiam).
AFFIRMED.
2 08-35188