Lionel Hanson v. Scott Kernan

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 3 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LIONEL HANSON, No. 10-16129
Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:05-cv-00284-LKK
v.
MEMORANDUM *
SCOTT KERNAN and BILL LOCKYER,
Attorney General,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence K. Karlton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 24, 2011 **
Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Lionel Hanson 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, and we affirm.
*
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).
Hanson contends that the evidence introduced at his trial was insufficient to
support the jury’s true finding on a criminal street gang enhancement. This
contention lacks merit because a rational trier of fact could have found that the
prosecution proved the essential elements of the enhancement beyond a reasonable
doubt. See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979); People v. Gardeley, 14
Cal. 4th 605, 624 n.10 (1996). We are bound by the California Court of Appeal’s
interpretation of state law in Hanson’s direct appeal. See Medley v. Runnells, 506
F.3d 857, 862 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc).
Accordingly, the state court’s decision rejecting Hanson’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 10-16129