Gary Brown, Petitioner-appellant, v. William Duncan, Warden; Attorney General of the State Ofcalifornia, Respondents-appellees, 103 F.3d 137 (9th Cir. 1996)

MEMORANDUM^** 

Gary Brown, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. Brown contends that the district court erred by dismissing his petition because he is entitled to sentencing credit for nine months he spent in custody prior to his current confinement. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review de novo, Calderon v. Prunty, 59 F.3d 1005, 1008 (9th Cir. 1995), and affirm.

A writ of federal habeas corpus shall not be granted to a prisoner unless he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States. See Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 68 (1991). Thus, relief does not lie for alleged errors in the application or interpretation of state law unless such errors violated a defendant's federal rights. See id. at 67-68; see also Miller v. Vasquez, 868 F.2d 1116, 1118-19 (9th Cir. 1989) (refusing consideration of alleged errors in application of state sentencing law where there was no violation of federal law). In some instances, the manner in which state law is applied may be so unfair as to deny a defendant due process. See McGuire, 502 U.S. at 75.

Here, Brown does not contend that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States, nor is there any indication that the state court committed any sort of error in violation of Brown's federal rights, including his right to due process. See McGuire, 502 U.S. at 67-68, 75. Accordingly, Brown's claim is not cognizable under federal habeas corpus, see id., and the district court did not err by dismissing Brown's 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition.

AFFIRMED.