N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT
B R IAN ALFOR

D, Pe t i tione r-Appe lla

nt,
v. DW IGHT NEVEN, W arde n; ATTOR NEY GENER AL FOR THE STATE OF NEVADA, R e sponde nts-Appe lle e s. No. 17-16358 D.C . No. 2:14-c v-00333-APG-NJK
M E M O RANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C o urt for the Distric t of Ne v a da Andre w P. Gordon, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 13, 2019 San Franc isc o, C a lifornia B e fore : M c KEOW

N, W . FLETC HER , a

nd M UR GUIA, C irc uit Judge s. On De c e m

be r 30, 2007, B rian Alford e nga ge d in a fight with Jerom e C a stro a t C a stro’ s tra ile r hom e in R e no, Ne va da . During the fight, Alford be at C a stro with his gun, a nd a singleshot wa s fire d. The bulle t gra z e d C a stro’ s he a d, c a u sing a fata l 

# FIL ED FEB 27 2019 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 Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.he a d injury . Ne va da c ha rge d Alford with first-de gre e m urde r and a dva

nc e d both pre m e dita te d- and fe lony -m

urde r the orie s at tria l. The jury , in a ge n e ra l ve rdic t,
c onvic te d Alford of first-de g re e m urde r. The Ne va da

Supre m e C ourt he ld tha

t suffic i e nt e vide nc e supporte d Alford’ s c onvic tion. O n fe de ra l ha be a s c orpus, the distric t c o urt a gre e d. W e grante d a C e rtific ate of Appe a la

bility on the issue of whe the r the e vide nc e at tria l wa s suffic ie nt to support Alford’ s first-de gre e m urde r c onvic tion ba se d on a

fe lony -m urde r the ory . A c onvic tion is supporte d by insuffic ie nt e vide nc e whe n no “ ra tiona l trie r of fa c t c ould ha ve found thee sse ntia l e le m e n ts of the c rim e be y ond a re a sona ble doubt.” J ac k son v . Virgini a , 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979). A c ourt a pply ing J ac k son m ust re solve any

c onflic ting te stim ony

in fa vor of the prose c ution. Id . at 326. Unde r the Anti-Te rrorism and Effe c tive De ath Pe na l ty Ac t, whic h gove rns this c a se , a fe d e ra l c ourt m ay ove rturn a sta te c ourt de c i sion re

je c ting a suffic ie nc y

of the
e vide nc e c h a lle nge “ only i f the sta t e c ourt de c ision wa s ‘ obje c tive ly unre a sona

ble .’ ” C ole man v . J

ohnson , 566 U.S. 650, 651 (pe r c uriam ) (quoting C

av azos v . Smith , 565 U.S. 1, 4 (2011) (pe r c uriam )). The te stim o ny

at Alford’ s tria l, ta

k e n in thelight m o st fa

vora b le to the prose c ution, re ve a le d tha

t a fte r be ing c lose d out of C a stro’ s house , B ria n Alford spit on C a stro a

nd the n “pushe d in thedoor a nd sta rte d fighting with [C a stro]
. ” On the 2ba sis of this evide nc e , a rationa l jury

c ould c o nc lude that Alford c om m itte d burgla

ry unde r Ne v. R e v. Stat. § 205.060, the fe lony unde rly ing the sta te ’ s fe l ony -m

urde r the o ry , by

e nte ring C a stro’ s hom e with the inte nt to c om m it ba tte ry . The Ne va da Supre m e C ourt’ s de c i sion tha t suffic ie nt e vide nc e supporte d Alford’ s c onvic tion for first-de gre e m

urde r wa s not obje c tive ly unre a sona

ble
. AFFIRM E D.

3