The opinion
SUMMARY ORDER
Jamel Witherspoon (“Witherspoon”) appeals from the decision of the District *116 Court, denying his request for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.
A certificate of appealibilty was issued by the district court on the issue of whether Witherspoon’s sentence pursuant to New York’s persistent felony offender statute, N.Y. Penal Law § 70 . 10, was contrary to or involved an unreasonable application of Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 , 122 S.Ct. 2428 , 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002).
The sentence imposed pursuant to the persistent felony offender statute was neither “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1). Under the rule announced in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), and expounded in Ring , a statute that merely mandates sentencing courts’ consideration of defendants’ histories, characteristics, and offenses falls into a different category than those that require the judicial finding of specific facts. See Brown v. Miller, 451 F.3d 54 (2d Cir.2006); Brown v. Greiner, 409 F.3d 523, 534-35 (2d Cir.2005). In Brown v. Miller, this court held that the “ ‘amorphous’ determination required by New York’s [persistent felony offender] statute” was not analogous to the judicial factfinding of an element of the crime. 451 F.3d at 59 .
We therefore affirm the judgment of the district court.