Tuanja Anderson v. Kathleen Dickinson

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 23 2011 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT TUANJA EDWARD ANDERSON, No. 09-16345 Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:05-cv-01609-GEB v. MEMORANDUM * KATHLEEN DICKINSON, Appellee, BILL LOCKYER, Attorney General, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Garland E. Burrell, District Judge, Presiding Submitted June 15, 2011 ** Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges. California state prisoner Tuanja Edward Anderson appeals from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have * 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). jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm. Anderson contends that the evidence introduced at his trial was insufficient to support a conviction for second-degree murder. Based upon the evidence adduced at trial, a rational trier of fact could have found that the prosecution proved the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979). Accordingly, the state court’s decision rejecting Anderson’s claim was not contrary to, and did not involve an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States, nor was it based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in state court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). AFFIRMED. 2 09-16345