Freddie Wright v. D. Dexter, No. 08-73272 (9th Cir. 2008)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ï£¼ FREDDIE WRIGHT, Petitioner, v. D. DEXTER, Warden, Respondent. ï£½ No. 08-73272 ORDER ï£¾ Filed October 14, 2008 Before: Kim McLane Wardlaw, William A. Fletcher and Johnnie B. Rawlinson, Circuit Judges. ORDER The application for authorization to file a second or successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition in the district court is denied. Petitioner has not made a prima facie showing under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2) that: (A) the claim relies on a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable; or (B)(i) the factual predicate for the claim could not have been discovered previously through the exercise of due diligence; and (ii) the facts underlying the claim, if proven and viewed in light of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable fact finder would have found the applicant guilty of the underlying offense. 14465 14466 WRIGHT v. DEXTER Petitioner asserts that the district court should vacate his sentence because it was imposed in violation of Cunningham v. California, 549 U.S. 270 (2007). We have held that Cunningham did not announce a new rule of constitutional law. Butler v. Curry, 528 F.3d 624, 639 (9th Cir. 2008). Therefore, Cunningham cannot form the basis of an application for a second or successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. No petition for rehearing or motion for reconsideration shall be filed or entertained in this case. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(E). DENIED. PRINTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE U.S. COURTS BY THOMSON REUTERS/WEST SAN FRANCISCO The summary, which does not constitute a part of the opinion of the court, is copyrighted © 2008 Thomson Reuters/West.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.