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 and 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 pa ne l una ni m ous l y c onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). 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 G REG O RY LY N N H A RRI S, P e titio n e r- A p p e lla n t, v. M I CHAEL B UD GE, R es po nd ent- A pp el l ee . N o. 09- 15507 D . C . N o . 2 : 0 5 - c v - 0 1 1 9 1 - J C MLRL 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 orthe D i s tr i c tof

N e va da J a m e s C . M a ha n, D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d F e brua ry 10, 2010 ** S a n F r a n c is c o , C a lif

o rn ia B efo re: O ’ S C A N N L A IN , T R O T T an d P A E Z , C i rcu i tJu d g es. G r e g o ry H a rr is ap p e a ls th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d is m is s a l o f h is p e titio n f

o raw r it of habe a s c orpus , w hi c h a l l e ge d avi ol a t i on of hi s r i ghtt o due pr oc e s s unde rthe F o u rte e n th A m e n d m e n t. H a rr is a r g u e s th a t th e r e w a s in s u f f ic ie n t e v id e n c e to 

# FI LED FEB 12 2 010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

supp orthi s c on vi ct i on s f or three char ges: (a ) T ra ff i cki ng of a C on trol l ed S ubs t a nc e ; ( b) C ons pi r a c y t o C om m i tR obbe ry ; a nd ( c ) L i vi ng F r om the E a rni ngs of aP r os t i tut e . H a rr i s f

i l e d hi s f e de r a l habe a s pe t i t i on a f t e rA pr i l 24, 1996; there fore the prov i si on s of the A nt i -T errori sm and E ff ec t i ve D ea th P enal ty A ct ( “A E D P A ” ) g o v e rn th is c a s e . Juan H. v. A l len , 40 8 F . 3d 12 62 , 12 70 (9th C i r. 2005) ( c i t i ng Chei n v. Sh um sk y , 3 7 3 F .3 d 9 7 8 , 9 8 3 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) ( e n b a n c ) ) . W e have j uri sdi ct i on pu rs uantt o 2 8 U . S . C . § 2 25 3. W e r evi ew de no vo a di stri ct c o u rt’s d e n ia l o f

as ta te p r is o n e r ’s p e titio n f o rh ab e a s r e lie f

, J u a n H. , 40 8 F . 3d at 1 2 6 9 n .7 , a n d w e a f

f irm . I n J a c k s o n v . V ir g in ia , 44 3 U . S . 30 7(19 79 ), the S up re m e C ou rtes t abl i shed the “ s t a nda r d [ tha t ] i s t o be appl i e d i n af e de r a l habe a s c orpus pr oc e e di ng w he n the c l a i m i s m a de tha tape r s on ha s be e n c onvi c t e d i n as t a t e c our tupon i ns uf f i c i e nt evi dence. ” I

d. a t309. T he C ourthe l d tha t“ the c r i t i c a l i nqui ry on r e vi e w of the 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 r t ac r im in a l c o n v ic tio n m u s t b e . . . to d e te rm in e w h e th e rth e r e c o r d e v id e n c e c o u ldr e a s o n ab ly s u p p o r t af in d in g o f g u ilt beyond a r ea sonabl e dou bt . ” I d. a t318. “ A f

t e rA E D P A , w e appl y the s t a nda r ds of J ac k s on w i th an add i t i on al l ay erof defe re nce. ” J u a n H. , 408 F . 3d a t1274 ( c i t i ng 28 U . S . C . § 2 25 4(d)). A ft erre vi ew i ng the re cord, w e c on cl ud e thatthere w as3

suff i ci entevi dence for ara t i on al j uror t o fi nd beyond a r ea sonabl e dou btthat H arri s w as g u i l ty o f th ese th ree o ffen ses. H a rr i s a l s o pr e s e nt e d tw o unc e r t i f i e d i s s ue s i n hi s ope ni ng br i e f , a l l e gi ng vi ol a t i ons of

hi s r i ghtt o c onf

r ontw i tne s s e s unde rthe S i xth A m e ndm e nta nd r i ght to d u e p r o c e s s u n d e rth e F o u rte e n th A m e n d m e n t. B e c au s e r e a s o n ab le ju r is ts wo u l d n o tf

i n d e i th e ro f

th e u n c e r t i f

i e d i s s u e s s ub m i tt e d t o b e d e b a t ab l e , we d ecl i n e t o ex p an d th e cert i fi cat e o f ap p eal ab i l i ty. AF F I R ME D.