Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-02029/USCOURTS-ca10-89-02029-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

'f 

ANTHONY 

v. 

GEORGE 

FILED 

UNITED STATES COUR~ OF APPEALS Uaiced Staett QNrt of Appeals 

T.!nth Cir~:uir 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

APR 2 ·1 1990 

SANCHEZ, ) 

&OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk ) 

Petitioner~Appellant ) 

) 

) 

) 

E. SULLIVAN, ) 

) 

Respondent-Appellee. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

No. 89-2029 

(D.C. No. 86-0650-M) 

(D. N.M.) 

Before LOGAN, JONES,** and SEYMOUR, Circuit Judges. 

**Honorable Nathaniel R. Jones, Circuit Judge, United States Court 

of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The case is therefore ordered 

The petitioner appeals from the district court's order which 

reflected the court's dismissal of the petitioner's 28 u.s.c. 

S 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus. 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, . or collater.aL.estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 89-2029 Document: 01019967132 Date Filed: 04/27/1990 Page: 1 
• 

\ 

The petitioner advances two general appellate arguments. The 

first involves the purported violation of his right under · the 

sixth and fourteenth amendments to confront witnesses against him. 

The second··concerns the purported violation of his due · process 

right not to be convicted of a crime in the absence of proof of 

guilt beyond a reasonable doubt as guaranteed by the fifth and 

fourteenth amendments. 

After consideration of the petitioner's contentions conjoined 

with review of the record on appeal, we conclude that the district 

court's dismissal of the petitioner's petition was correct. We 

are satisfied that the district court's admission of the testimony 

of which petitioner complains was proper under exceptions to the 

hearsay rule, see United States v. Glenn, 473 F.2d 191, 194 (D.C. ' 

Cir. 1972); United States v. Napier, 518 F.2d 316, 317-318 (9th 

Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 895 (1975), and that the court acted 

within its discretion in prohibiting cross-examination of Mr. 

Garcia on the reasons for his and Mr. Martinez's discharge. On 

the sufficiency of the evidence argument, "the relevant question 

is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable 

to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found 

the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." 

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)(emphasis in 

original). 

The order of the United States District Court for the 

District of New Mexico entered on December 29, 1988, is AFFIRMED. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

2 

Appellate Case: 89-2029 Document: 01019967132 Date Filed: 04/27/1990 Page: 2