NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
Robert R. SHAW, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
Robert WINTER, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 88-15203.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted* April 10, 1989.
Decided April 13, 1989.
Before CHAMBERS, WALLACE and WIGGINS, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM
Shaw appeals pro se from the district court's denial of his habeas corpus petition. Shaw challenged his conviction for attempting to receive stolen property under Cal. Penal Code Secs. 496 and 664 on the ground that case law interpreting Cal. Penal Code Sec. 496 conflicts with Article IV, Section 9 of the California Constitution. The district court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2241. We have jurisdiction over this timely appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2253. We review the denial of a habeas corpus petition independently. Weygandt v. Ducharme, 774 F.2d 1491, 1492 (9th Cir.1985). Adopting the reasoning expressed by the district court as our own, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
Note: This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the Courts of this Circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a) and Ninth Circuit Rule 34-4