NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 5 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WILLIAM JOVIAN DAVIS, No. 16-56662
Petitioner-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:13-cv-08179-GW-LAL
v.
CLARK E. DUCART, Warden, MEMORANDUM*
Respondent-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
George H. Wu, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 3, 2019**
Before: WALLACE, FARRIS, and TROTT, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner William Jovian Davis appeals from the district
court’s judgment denying his habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review de novo the district court’s denial
of Davis’s petition, see Emery v. Clark, 643 F.3d 1210, 1213 (9th Cir. 2011), and
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
we affirm.
Davis contends that the sentencing enhancement imposed under Cal. Penal
Code § 186.22(b)(1) was not supported by sufficient evidence. On this record, the
California Court of Appeal’s determination that there was sufficient evidence to
support all elements of the gang enhancement was neither contrary to nor an
unreasonable application of clearly established federal law, nor based on an
unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented. See 28
U.S.C. § 2254(d); Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 324 (1979); Johnson v.
Montgomery, 899 F.3d 1052, 1056-60 (9th Cir. 2018); see also Coleman v.
Johnson, 566 U.S. 650, 651 (2012) (per curiam) (“We have made clear that
Jackson claims face a high bar in federal habeas proceedings because they are
subject to two layers of judicial deference.”).
We construe Davis’s additional argument concerning the denial of an
evidentiary hearing as a motion to expand the certificate of appealability. So
construed, the motion is denied. See 9th Cir. R. 22-1(e); Hiivala v. Wood, 195
F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir. 1999).
AFFIRMED.
2 16-56662