Unpublished Disposition, 931 F.2d 60 (9th Cir. 1990)Annotate this Case
Jimmy Dean LEE, Petitioner-Appellant,v.Bill BUNNELL, Superintendent, CA, Correctional Institution,Tehachapi, Respondent-Appellee.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 19, 1991.* Decided April 23, 1991.
Before POOLE, D.W. NELSON and NOONAN, Circuit Judges.
Jimmy Dean Lee, a state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. Lee was convicted in state court for robbery and possession of a weapon by a felon. He contends that there was insufficient evidence to establish that he intended to aid and abet the commission of a robbery. He also contends that the jury instructions given on aiding and abetting violated his right to due process. We review de novo, Watts v. Bonneville, 879 F.2d 685 (9th Cir. 1989), and affirm.
Lee's contentions are meritless. In an unpublished order entered on June 22, 1990, the district court considered and addressed these issues. We affirm the dismissal based on the analysis set forth in the district court's well reasoned order.1
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for disposition without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 9th Cir.R. 34-4
In the district court, Lee argued that the state court improperly enhanced his sentence with a prior felony conviction. The district court's order addresses and dismisses this claim. Lee does not raise this issue on appeal. Accordingly, we do not address this claim. See United States v. State of Oregon, 769 F.2d 1410, 1414 (9th Cir. 1985)