FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 19 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JAMEL RASHAWN STEVENS, No. 14-17216
Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:11-cv-03390-MCE
v.
MEMORANDUM*
RON BARNS,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Morrison C. England, Jr., Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 14, 2015**
Before: SILVERMAN, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Jamel Rashawn Stevens appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review de novo the district court’s
decision to deny a habeas petition, see Murdaugh v. Ryan, 724 F.3d 1104, 1113
*
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).
(9th Cir. 2013), and we affirm.
Stevens contends that there was insufficient evidence to support the jury’s
finding that he killed the victim with premeditation and deliberation. The state
court’s rejection of Stevens’ claim was neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable
application of, Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979). See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254(d)(1); Coleman v. Johnson, 132 S. Ct. 2060, 2062, 2065 (2012) (per
curiam). In light of the evidence presented at trial, and in particular the evidence
that the victim was a member of a rival gang who was fleeing when Stevens shot
and killed him, the state court reasonably concluded that, “viewing the evidence in
the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have
found” that Stevens acted with the requisite intent. See Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319.
We treat Stevens’ additional argument as a motion to expand the certificate
of appealability. So treated, the motion is denied. See 9th Cir. R. 22-1(e); Hiivala
v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir. 1999) (per curiam).
AFFIRMED.
2 14-17216