N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
R OGER R . ADAM S, Pe titione r - Appe lla nt,
v. FR ANC ISC O JAC QUEZ, W arde n, R

e sponde n t - Appe lle e . No. 11-17733

D.C . No. 2:10-c v-02266-JAM
KJN
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia J ohn A. M e nde z , Distric t Judge , Pre siding A rgue d a nd Subm itte d Ja

nua ry 13, 2014 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : WALLAC E a

nd B YB EE, C irc u i t Judge s, a nd M AHAN, Distric t Judge
. ** State prisone r R o ge r Adam s a ppe a ls from

the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of his pe tition for a

writ of ha

be a s c orpus file d pursua

nt to 28 U.S.C . § 2254. W e have jurisdic tion pursua

n t to 28 U.S.C . §§ 1291 a nd 2253(a), a

nd we a ffirm
. 

# FIL ED

FEB 06 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The Honora

ble Ja m e s C . M aha

n, Distric t Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ne va da , sitting by de signa tion.First, Ada m s a rgue s tha t the re wa s insuffic ie nt e vide nc e to support his
c onvic tions a

nd the fire arm

and ga ng e nha nc e m e nts im

pose d on him . In re vie wing the c onstitutiona

l suffic ie nc y

of e vide nc e to support a

c rim ina l c onvic tion, we follow thetwo-ste p proc e ss e sta blishe d by J

ac k son v . Virginia
. Unite d State s v . N e v ils , 598 F.3d 1158, 1163–64 (9th C i r. 2010) (e n ba nc ) (disc ussing J

ac k son v . Virginia , 443 U.S. 307, 318–19 (1979)). First, we “ m ust c onside r the e vide nc e pre s e nte d at tria l in thelight m ost fa vora ble to the prose c ution.” Id. at 1164. Se c ond, we m

u st de te rm ine whe the r this e v i de nc e , whe n vie we d in tha t light, is
a de quate to a llow “ a n

y rationa l trie r of fa c t [to find] the e s se ntia l e l e m e nts of the
c rim e be y ond a

re a sona ble doubt.” Id. (c ita

tion omitte d ). M ore ove r, “ whe n we a sse ss a suffic ie nc y

of e vide nc e c ha lle nge in the c a se of a sta te prisone r se e king fe de ra l ha be a s c o rpus re l ie f subje c t to thestric ture s of [the Antite rrorism and Effe c t ive De ath Pe na l t

y Ac t of 1996 (AEDPA)] , the re is a double dose of de fe re nc e tha

t c an rare ly

be surm ounte d ,” a s the sta te c ourt’ s “ a

pplic ation of the J ac k son s ta nda rd m ust be ‘ obje c tive ly

unre a sona

ble ’ to wa rran t ha b e a s re l ie f for a sta te prisone r.” B oy e r v . Be lle q ue , 659 F.3d 957, 964–65 (9th C i r. 2011). Vie wing thee vide nc e in this light, we re je c t Ada m s’ s a rgum e n t. The
e vide nc e pre se n te d at tria l , inc luding e vide nc e that Ada m s ha d am

m un ition on his pe rson a nd gun re sidue on his c lothing, wa s suffic ie n t to a llow “ any rationa l trie r 2of fa c t” to c onvic t him an d im pose the fire arm e nha

nc e m e nt. M ore o ve r, the C a lifornia C ourt of Appe a l’ s de te rm ination tha t the re wa s suffic i e nt e vide nc e to support thega

ng e nha nc e m e nt wa s not “ obje c tive ly unre a sona

ble .” Ada

m s’ s c onte ntion re ga

rding the insuffic ie nc y

of e vide nc e tha

t he wa s a n “ a c tive ” pa rtic i pa nt in thega

ng is m e ritle ss unde r C a lifornia la w . Se e In reRamon T. , 57 C a l. App. 4th 201, 207 (C a l. C t. App. 1997). Se c ond, Ada

m s a rgue s tha t the tria l c ourt m a de a

va rie ty of instruc tiona l
e rrors, inc luding fa iling to de fine “ m ate ria lity ” in the jury instruc tions, fa iling to provide instruc tions on le sse r-re late d offe nse s, a

nd fa iling to instruct the jury
a de quate ly

a s to thee le m e nts of thega ng e nha nc e m e nt. The sta

te c ourt did not
a ddre s s the m e rits of the se c la im s, inste a d holding tha t the y we re proc e d

ura lly ba rre d. R e ga

rdle ss of whe the r we re vie w the se c la i m s de novo or c onduc t a m ore de fe re ntia l AEDPA re vie w, se eRunninge aglev . Ry a n , 686 F.3d 758, 778 (9th C i r. 2012), the y

fa il, be c a use Adam s ha s not shown tha t the puta t ive e rrors so infe c te d his tria l tha

t his c onvic t ions viola

te d due proc e ss. Se e Este llev . Mc Guire , 502 U.S. 62, 72–73 (1991) (holding tha t c ha lle nge s to jury

instruc tions do not sta

te a fe de ra l
c onstitutiona

l c la im outside of a

“ ve ry na rrowly ” de fine d c ate gory

of infra c tions that viola te “ funda m e nta l fa irne ss” ) (c ita

tion omitte d ).

3Fina lly , Ada m s a rgue s tha t the tria l c ourt m a de se ve ra l inc orre c t e vide ntia ry rulings. Insofa

r a s the se c la im s involvethe tria l c ourt’ s a pplic at ion of sta

te la w, the y are not c ogniz a

ble on fe de ra l ha

be a s re v ie w. Se e id. at 67–68 (e xpla ining tha t it is “not the provinc e of a fe de ra l ha

be a s c o urt to re e xam i ne sta te -c ourt de te rm i nations on sta

te -law que stions” ). Insofa r a s Ada m s’ s c l a im

tha t his tria l should ha ve be e n bifurc ate d im

plic ate s fe de ra l la

w, it is re je c te d
. Se e Spe n c e r v . Te x as , 385 U.S. 554, 567–68 (1967) (sta ting tha t bifurc ate d jury

tria ls “ h ave ne ve r be e n c o m pe lle d by [the Supre m e C ourt] a s a m atte r of c onstitutiona

l la w” ). In light of our re

je c t ion of Ada

m s’ s c la im s on the m e rits, we do not re a c h the i ssue of the proc e d

ura l ba r im pose d by the sta t e c ourt unde r Ex

parte Dix on , 264 P.2d 513 (C a l. 1953). AFFIRM E D.

4