
    Ronny Lee FAIN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jack PALMER and Nevada Attorney General, Respondents-Appellees.
    No. 12-17181.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 17, 2014.
    
    Filed Nov. 21, 2014.
    Robert W. Story, Story Law Group, Reno,NV, for Petitioner-Appellant.
    Ronny Lee Fain, pro se.
    Adam L. Woodrum, Office of the Nevada Attorney General, Las Vegas, NV, for Respondents-Appellees.
    Before: REINHARDT, THOMAS, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Ronny Lee Fain appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 arid 2253(a). We affirm.

We review a district court’s denial of a habeas petition de novo. Musladin v. Lamarque, 555 F.3d 830, 835 (9th Cir.2009). A habeas petition challenging a state court conviction cannot be granted unless the decision was either “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States,” or “based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).

Fain argues that the delay in resolving his appeal from his state court conviction violated his due process rights. However, this argument is precluded by binding circuit precedent, in which we previously held that “no clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States recognizes a due process right to a speedy appeal.” Hayes v. Ay ers, 632 F.3d 500, 523 (9th Cir.2011) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also Blair v. Martel, 645 F.3d 1151, 1158 (9th Cir.2011). A three judge panel lacks the authority to overrule circuit precedent in the absence of an intervening, clearly irreconcilable, Supreme Court opinion, en'banc opinion, or statutory change. Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 677 (9th Cir.2011).

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