United States Court of Appeals, Ninth CircuitMar 29, 2010
372 Fed. Appx. 750 (9th Cir. 2010)

Cases citing this document

How cited

  • United States v. Cole

    Thus, these claims are barred from consideration. See Lange v. Belleque, 372 F. App'x 750 (9th Cir. 2010)…

1 Citing case

Summaries written by judges


  • upholding dismissal of motion to challenge sentence on the basis that such motion was waived

    Summary of this case from United States v. Cole

No. 07-36087.

Submitted March 16, 2010.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).

Filed March 29, 2010.

Kendra M. Matthews, Esq., Ransom Blackmon, LLP, Portland, OR, for Petitioner-Appellant.

Douglas Park, Esq., Office of the Oregon Attorney General, for Respondent-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, Michael W. Mosman, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-O5-00255-HU.

Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.


This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Oregon state prisoner Chris S. Lange appeals from the district court's order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we dismiss.

Lange contends that the district court erred when it dismissed his petition on the grounds that he waived his right to challenge his sentence in any state or federal collateral proceeding. The record reflects that Lange waived his right to file the instant petition, which is necessarily a challenge to his sentence. The district court did not err in concluding that the petition is barred by a valid waiver of the right to file a collateral challenge to his sentence. See Washington v. Lampert, 422 F.3d 864, 869 (9th Cir. 2005).