T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on a nd i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36–3. T he panel un ani m ou sl y f i nd s thi s c as e s ui t abl e f

or deci si on w i tho utoral ** a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). T he H onor abl e R obe rtH ol m e s B e l l , U ni t e d S t a t e s D i s tr i c tJ udge f orthe *** W e s t e rn D i s tr i c tof

M i c hi ga n, s i tt i ng by de s i gna t i on. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T N I G EL K . H I D ER, P e titio n e r - A p p e lla n t, v. J . W A LK ER, R es po nd ent -A pp el l ee , N o. 10- 55857 D . C. N o . 2 : 0 7 - c v - 0 7 1 1 9 - D D PRNB ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e C e n tr a l D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia D e a n D . P r e ge r s on, D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d J a nua ry10, 2013 ** P a s a d e n a , C a lif

o rn ia Be f o r e : M c KEOW N a n d M . SM I TH, Ci r c u i tJ u d g e s , a n d BE LL , D is tr ic t J u d g e . *** P e t i t i one r - A ppe l l a ntN i ge l K . H i de rappe a l s adi s tr i c tc ourtor de rde ny i ng 

# FI LED JAN 15 2 013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

hi s 28 U . S . C . § 2 25 4 h abea s c orpu s pet i t i on , and p re se nt s three grou nd s f or re l i ef: ( 1) the r e w a s i ns uf

f i c i e nte vi de nc e t o s upportthe s pe c i f i c i nt e nte l e m e ntof

the ga ng- r e l a t e d s e nt e nc i ng e nha nc e m e nt , C a l . P e na l C ode § 186. 22; ( 2) the pr os e c ut or c om m i tt e d m i s c onduc tby vi ol a t i ng the tr i a l c ourt ’ s or de rt o r e f r a i n f r om m en ti o n in g a s ec o n d attem p ted ar so n o n th e v icti m ’s re sid en ce ; an d (3 ) H id er ’s tr i a l c ouns e l r e nde r e d i ne f f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e byf

a i l i ng t o obj e c tt o the t e s t i m ony c o n c e rn in g th e s e c o n d a r s o n in c id e n t. O n lyth e f ir s t is s u e w a s c e rtif

ie d f o rap p e a l, a nd w e de c l i ne t o e xpa nd the c e rt i f i c a t e of appe a l abi l i ty . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on u n d e r2 8 U . S. C. § 2 2 5 3 ( a ) , a n d w e a f f i rm. T he C al i forni a C ou rtof A pp ea l previ ou sl y r ej ec t ed H i der’ s argum entthat th e r e w a s in s u f

f ic ie n t e v id e n c e th a t h e p o s s e s s e d th e r e q u is ite s p e c if ic in te n t “to pr om ot e , f

urthe r , ora s s i s ti n a ny c r i m i na l c onduc tby ga ng m e m be r s ” f orthe § 1 8 6 .2 2 s e n te n c in g e n h a n c e m e n t. A w r it o f h ab e a s c o rp u s o n b e h a lf o f as ta te p r is o n e rm a y n o t b e g r a n te d o n ac la im th a t w a s a d ju d ic a te d o n th e m e r its in s ta te c ourt , unl e s s s uc h a dj udi c a t i on “ r e s ul t e d i n ade c i s i on tha tw a s c ontr a ryt o, or i nv ol ved an u nrea sonabl e app l i ca t i on of, cl earl y e st abl i shed F eder al l aw , as d e te rm in e d b y th e S u p r e m e C o u rt o f th e U n ite d S ta te s .” 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 ( d ) ( 1 ) . H i de ra r gue s tha tthe C ourtof A ppe a l de c i s i on, a n unr e a s onabl e appl i c a t i on of J a c k s o n v . V ir g in ia , 44 3 U . S . 30 7, 31 9 (19 79 ), w hi ch hel d that“ the cr i t i ca l i nq ui ry3

o n r e v ie w o f

th e s u f f ic ie n c y o f

th e e v id e n c e to s u p p o rt ac r im in a l c o n v ic tio n ” is

“ w he the r , a f

t e rvi e w i ng the e vi de nc e i n the l i ghtm os tf avor abl e t o the pr os e c ut i on, anyr a t i o n a l tr i e ro f

f a c tc o u l d h a v e f

o u n d th e e s s e n t i a l e l e me n t s o f th e c r i me beyond a r ea sonabl e dou bt . ” I d. Th e d i s tr i c tc o u rtr e l i e d o n th e s u b s t a n t i a l a mo u n to f e v i d e n c e th a tth e c r i me w as gang -r el at ed i n con cl ud i ng thatthe C ou rtof A pp ea l deci si on w as no tan un re as on abl e app l i ca t i on of J ac k s on . W e a gr e e . G i ve n H i de r ’ s l ong- runni ng h ar as sm en t o f th e v icti m , a fo rm erm em b ero f th e S h o tg u n C rip s ( a r iv al to H id er ’s ow n P ayB ac k C ri ps), and exp ertt es t i m on y thatH i der’ s c ri m es w er e c om m i tt ed f orthe be ne f

i tof the P a y B a c k C r i ps , ar a t i ona l j uryc oul d ha ve f ound be y ond a r e a s onabl e doubttha tH i de ra c t e d “ w i th the s pe c i f i c i nt e ntt o pr om ot e , f

urthe r , or as si sti n any cr i m i nal cond uctby gang m em bers . ” C al . P en. C od e S ec . 1 8 6 .2 2 ( b ) ( 1 ) . AF F I RME D.