Mesa Rith v. HECTOR A. RIOS, Jr., Warden

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MESA RITH,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
HECTOR A. RIOS, Jr., Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 10-16940
D.C. No. 1:10-cv-01035-LJO-GSA
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence J. O’Neill, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 12, 2013**
San Francisco, California
Before: WALLACE, McKEOWN, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Rith appeals from the district court’s judgment of dismissal for lack of
jurisdiction of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291 and we affirm.
FILED
APR 01 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
Although Rith’s argument that he was entitled to bring a section 2241
petition was based on his contention that he was “actually innocent,” he did not
argue that he was actually innocent of the crime of conviction. His argument that
he was innocent of his career offender status for sentencing purposes is “not
cognizable as a claim of actual innocence.” Marrero v. Ives, 682 F.3d 1190, 1195
(9th Cir. 2012) cert. denied, 2013 WL 598706 (Feb. 19, 2013). He has not argued
that any of the exceptions to this rule recognized by our sister circuits apply here.
See Id. at 1194-95. Accordingly, the district court did not err in holding it had no
jurisdiction to hear the petition. Id. at 1195.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --