Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determin ed that thi s opinio n should not * be publishe d an d is not precede nt except under the limit ed circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 30582

RE GI NAL D T J OHNS ON P eti ti on er - A p p ell a n t v. BURL CAI N, W ARDEN, L OUI S I ANA S TA TE P ENI TE NTI ARY R espon den t- A pp el l ee

A p p ea lf

rom the U n i ted S tates D i stri ct C ou rt f ort he E as t er n D i st r i c tof Loui si ana U SD C N o. 2: 07- C V

- 1235

B ef ore R E AV L E Y , SM ITH , an d D E N N IS, C i rcui tJu dg es . P E R C U R I A M: * Pet i t i o ne rRegi nal d J o hns o n ( “ Joh n son”) w as convi ct ed i n 199 9 of vi ol ati ng Loui s i ana ’ s r ac ke t e e r i ng s t at ut e , La. Rev
. St at
. § 15 : 13 53 ( C)

. Af t e re xha us t i ng hi s di r e c ta pp eal s a nd s t at e c o l l at e r alr e vi e w pr o c e e di ngs , J o hns o n f i l e d t he i ns t antpe t i t i o n f

o ra w r i to f

ha be as c o r pus pur s uantt o 28 U
. S. C. § 2 25 4. Am o ng o th e rcla im s , h e a s s e r t e d th a t t h e r e w a s in s u ffic ie n t e v id e n c e to s u p p o r t h is
c onvi c t i on, r es ul t i ng i n a vi ol at i on o f hi s c ons t i t ut i onalr i ghtt o due pro c es s as i nt e r pr e t e d by t he U ni t e d St at e s Supr e m e Cour ti n Ja ck so n v. V irg in ia , 443 U
. S. United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D September

29, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 30582

2 30 7 ( 19 79 )

. Al t ho ugh t he di s t r i c tc o ur tf o und t hatthe A n t i t e r r o r i s m a nd E f fect i ve D eath P en al t y A ctof 199 6 (A E D P A) , 2 8 U
. S

. C

. § 2254 ( d), di d n ot pro hi bi t i ss uance of t he w r i t , i t nonet hel es s deni ed r el i ef af t erc onduct i ng a de
novo rev i ew o f th e cl a i m . T h e d i stri ct co u rt gra n ted a ce rti fi ca te of ap p ea l a b i l i ty ( C O A) as t o J ohn son’ s suf f i c i enc y- of

- t he- evi denc e c l ai m . W e c onc l ude t hat A E D P Ab a r s is s u a n c e o f th e w r it in th is ca s e a n d th e r e fo r e a ffir m . I . B A CK GRO UND In 199 9, a j u ry convi ct ed R egi n al d T. Joh n son of racketeer i n g i n vi ol ati on o f L a . R e v . S ta t. § 1 5 :13 5 3 (C ). H e w a s s e n te n ce d a s a n h a b itu a l offen d e r to li fe i m pr i s o nm e nt
. J o hns on fi l e d a n o ut
- o f

- t i m e a ppe al , a nd h i s c o nvi c t i o n a nd sentence w ere af

f i rm ed on di rectapp eal
. Th e L ou i si an a S u prem e C ou rtden i ed J o h n s o n ' s re q u e s t fo ra w r it o f c e r tio r a r i. S ee S t atev. Joh n son , 857 So. 2d 490 , 4 9 1 (L a . 2 0 0 3 ). J o h n s o n w a s a re s id e n t o f L o n gB e a c h , C a lifo r n ia . J o h n s o n s o ld
m arij u an a to M arvi n W i l ey, a res i den tof H ou m a, L ou i si an a, m an y t i m es b e tw e e n M a y1 9 9 6 a n d F e b r u a r y1 9 9 8
. D u r in g th a t p e r io d o f tim e , W ile yp a id
s e ve r alw o m e n t o t r av e lb e t w e e n Lo ng Beac h a nd H o um a t r an spo r t i ng
m a r iju a n a fr o m J o h n s o n to W ile y . In g e n e r a l, th e w o m e n w o u ld tr a v e l b ya ir f r o m Lo ui s i ana t o Lo ng Beac h a nd t he n r e t ur n t o Lo ui s i ana b y t r ai n wi t h t he
m ar ij uana . O n at l e as t o ne o c c as i o n, t he w o m an m ak i ng t he t r i p was b r i ngi ng o ve r$ 24 , 00 0 i n c as h t o Cal i f o r ni a. M o r e of

t e n t ho ugh , W i l e y hadt he di f fe r e nt
w o m e n w ir e m o n e yfo rh im to J o h n s o n o rJ o h n s o n ’ s a s s o c ia te s . In L o n gB e a c h , w h e n th e w o m e n a r r iv e d a t t h e a ir p o r t, J o h n s o n w o u ld fe t c h t he m and br i ng t he m t o a ho t e l r o o m . O nc e i n t he ho t e l r o o m , Joh n son w oul d give t he w om en a s ui t c as e of m ar ij uana. Jo hnson, f orhi s par t , had at l east t w o w om en rec ei v e w i red m on ey f or hi m . John son als o rec ei ved w i red
m on ey an d si gn ed f

or i tun der t h e na m e K evi n H i l l
. Th e st ate appell ate c ou rt
c h a r a c terized th i s op era ti on a s “an en terp ri se . . . , i n w h i ch [Joh n son ] s o ldN o. 08- 30582

3 m arij u an a to W i l ey an d assi st ed i n t h e t ran sport i n g of t h e m arij u an a f

rom C a l i forn i a to H ou m a , w h ere W i l ey sold itto oth ers.” R epresented by coun sel , Joh n son f i l ed a stat e app l icati on f or pos t c onvi c t i on r el i ef

( PC R ) i n w hi c h he ar gued f or t he f i r st t i m e t hatt her e w as i ns uf f i c i e ntevi den ce t o sup port h i s r acketeeri n g convic t i on. J o hns o n’ s a r gum e nt f ocused on hi s c l ai m t h at t h e State h ad not proven the exi st en ce of an enterpri se f orpurpo se s of

La. R ev. St at
. § 1 5 : 1353( C )

. The t r i alc our tc onduct ed an
e vi de nt i ar y he ar i ng o n t he m at t e r . The t r i al cou rt pr e s um e d t hatt he
r ac ket ee r i ng i nst r uct i ons given t o t he j ury w er e c or r ec t , not ed t hatt he j ury had fou n d the elem en t p rov en , an d de n i ed Jo h n son ' s P C R ap p l i ca ti on . T h e sta te
s u p r e m e co u r t d e n ie d J o h n s o n ' s re q u e s t fo rs u p e r v is o r yw r its
. A m ong o t herc l ai m s, Jo hnson al l ege d i n hi s § 2254 pet i t i on t hatt her e w as i n suff i ci en tevi den ce t o sup port h i s convic t i on becau se t h e S t ate had not proven t he ent er pri se el em entof § 15: 1353( C )

. A ddi t i onal l y, John so n ar gued t hatt r i al
c o uns e l w as i ne f

fe c t i ve i n t hat he w as unfam i l i ar w i t h t he l aw g o ve r ni ng L ou i si an a' s ra ck e te eri n g st atute and t h u s fai l ed to rai se t h e i n suff i ci en cy argum e ntt o t he j ur y o ri n a po s tj udg m e ntm o t i o n. The di s t r i c tc o ur tde ni ed Jo hns o n’ s § 2 25 4 pe t i t i o n. Jo hns o n t i m e l y f i l e d a no t i ce of

a pp eal , a nd t he di st ri ct court gran t ed John son’ s r equ estf or a C O Aon h i s Jackson su ffi cie n cy -ofth e -e v id e n c e a n d re la te d in e ffe c tiv e a s s is ta n c e cla im s . I I . S TA NDARD OF RE VI EW

“ In a h abea s c orpu s ap pea l , w e revi ew the di st ri ctcou rt ’ s f i n di n gs of fact f o rc l e a re r r o ra n d r e v i e w i t s c o n c l u s i o n s o f l a w de no vo , a p p l y i n gt h e s a me stan d a rd of rev i ew to t h e sta te cou rt’ s d ecisi on a s th e d i stri ct cou rt. ” T h ompson v . Ca in , 1 6 1 F .3 d 8 0 2 , 8 0 5 (5 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ); seealso B eazl ey v. Joh n son , 242 F. 3d 2 4 8 , 2 5 5 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ).N o. 08- 30582

“I t isunlaw ful foranyp er so ne mp loyedb y , ora sso ci ate d with , anye nterp ri se 1 knowinglyto conduct or participate in, directlyor indirectly, such enterprise through a pattern of r ack et eerin gactivity .” L a . R ev . St at. § 1 5 :1 3 5 3 (C). The district court granted a CO A as to onlyon e i ssue: “ [I]n suffici encyof evidence 2 regardingth e el em ents of racketeering an d th e relate d ineffectiveassi stanc e of counselin failingto obj e c t t o th e l ac k o f evi d e nc e . ” J o hn s o n r ai s e s ar gu m e nt s in hi s b ri e f b e yond the scope of th e C OA, specifically : (1) wheth er Loui sian a h ad p roper extraterritorialj uri sdictio n over him; and (2) wh ether tri al and appellatecounselwere ineffective for failingto raiseth e issues of extr aterritorialj uri sdictio n, severanc e, and the legality of an investigative sto p performe d ona co-defe ndant. Jo hnson h as not move d to expand the COA; thu s, theissu e pr es ente d inth e di strictc ourt’sc ertificationi s th e onlyi ssu e wec on si der. See L ac k eyv . Joh nson , 1 1 6F .3 d 1 4 9( 5 thC ir
. 1 9 9 7). 4 I I I . D I S CU S S I ON J oh n son all eg es th a t he w a s con victed of ra ck etee ri n g u n d er L a . R ev . S tat. § 1 5 :1 3 5 3 (C ) w ith o u t s u ffic ie n t ev id e n c e , th u s re s u ltin gin a d e p r iv a tio n o f h is 1 fe de r alc o ns t i t ut i o nalr i ghtt o due pr o c e s s a s o ut l i ne d i n Ja ck so n v. V irg in ia , 443 U
. S. 3 07 ( 19 79 )

. I n Jackson , t h e Su prem e C ou rthel d that t h e du e process 2 cl au se gua ran t ees a r i gh tt o be f ree f rom cr i m i n alconvi ct i on “e xcept upon
s uf f i c i e ntpr o o f

- - de f i ne d a s e vi de nc e ne c e s s ar y t o c o nvi nc e a t r i e ro f fac tb e yo nd
a rea son a b l e d ou b t as to th e ex i sten ce of ev ery elem en t of th e cri m e.” Jackson , 443 U
. S

. at 316
. Aha beas peti t i on er i s enti t l ed to rel i ef un der Jackson “ if it is f ou n d that up on t h e rec ord evi den ce add u ced at t h e t ri alno rati on alt ri er of fact
cou l d h a ve f

ou n d pr oo f of gu i l t bey on d a re a son a b l e d ou b t. ” I d. at324. Speci f i c al l y, Johnso n c ont ends t her e w as no evi denc e t h a t he w as as s o c i at e d wi t h an “ e nt e r pr i s e . ” Loui s i ana st at ut e s def i ne “ e nt e r pr i s e ” as “ any i n di vi du al , sol e propri et orshi p, partnershi p, corporati on or ot h er l egal enti t y, or anyunc har t e r e d a s s o c i at i o n, o rg r o up o f i ndivi dua l s as s o c i at e d i n fac ta nd i ncl udes unl aw f

ulas w ellas l aw f

ulent er pri se s and gove r nm ent alas w el las o th e re n tit ie s .” L a . R e v . S ta t. § 1 5 :1 3 5 2 (B ). Johnso n ar gues t hatt he “ e nt e r p r i se ” el em entr equi r es t hatt he s t at e pr ove t h at t h e enterpri se exi st ed sepa rat e an d ap artf rom t h e racket eeri n g act i vi t i esN o. 08- 30582

As the district court note d, this division amon g Louisiana’ s courts of appeals mirrors 3 a si milar sp lit a mo n gth e fe deral circuit s app lyin gRI C O. See Odom v. MicrosoftC orp. , 48 6 F
. 3 d 5 4 1 , 5 5 0

- 5 1 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 7) ( d e t ailin g th e di s a gr e e m e nt a m o n g f e d e r al c o urts onth e is su e)

. 5 i teng aged i n . I n sup port of t h i s argum en t , Joh n son c i t es t o t h e L ou i si an a T h i rd Ci r c ui t ’ s de c i s i o n i n S t atev. T ou chet , 759 S o. 2d 194 ( L a. A pp . 3 C i r. 200 0) , w h i ch f ol l ow ed a l i n e of

federalR IC O cases t o hol d that an en t erpri se f or purp oses of t h e L ou i si an a st atute m u st“ exi st [] separate an d ap artf rom t h e patt ern of
a ctivity at i ssu e.” Se e i d. a t 1 9 9
. N o ta b ly, th e fac ts o f T ou cheti nvo l ve d a dr ug conspir acy, w h i ch w as h el d n otto be an “ en t erpri se” becau se i texi st ed on l y f or th e pu rpose of

eng aging i n t h e racket eeri n g act i vi t y (i
. e. , di st ribu t i on of control l ed su bsta n ce s). F ol l ow i n g t h i s i n t erpret ati on of t h e st atute, Joh n son fu r th e ra r g u e s th a t n o s u c h e v id e n c e w a s p r e s e n te d d u r in gh is tr ia l. L o ui s i ana ’ s Fi f

t h Ci r c ui t , ho w e ve r , s e e m i ngl y r e ac he d t he o ppo si t i on c o nc l us i o n i n S ta te v
. S a rr io , 8 03 So

. 2d2 12 ( La. Ap p. 5 C i r . 2 00 1) , w he r e t he
c o u r th e l dt h a tad r ug c o ns pi r ac y s at i s f i e d t he s t at ut e ’ s “ e nt e r pr i s e ” r e qui r e m e nt
even t h ou gh t h ere w as no i n di cat i on t h at t h e assoc i ati on exi st ed f or an y ot h er p u r p o s e . Se e i d. at 227
. Th e S a rr io cour tdi s t i ngu i s he d T ou cheton fac t ual g ro u n d s, co n clu d in gth a t t h e fa c ts o f S a rr io r e ve al e d a b e t t e ro r ga ni z e d d r ug d is tr ib u tio n o p e r a tio n . Se e i d. Al t ho ugh pur po r t i ng t o a ppl y a “ s e pa r at e a nd ap art ” requi rem en t , t h e S arri o cou rt as a pr a cti ca lm a tter f ou n d tha t t h e S tate hadpr o ve n a vi o l at i o n o f t he s t at ut e e ve n t ho ugh t he e nt e r pr i s e e xi s t e d f o rno ot herpurpo se t han drug de al i ng. 3 The di s t r i c tc o ur tde t e r m i ne d de no vo t h at t h ere w as suf f i ci en tevi den ce u n d er eithe r i n terp reta ti o n - - th e m ore l en i en t S arri o i nt e r pr e t at i o n o n o ne h a n d , an d the m ore stri n ge n t T o u ch et i n terp reta ti on on the oth er -- for a j u ryto f i n d Joh n son gu i l t y. I tf ou n d t h at the i n st an tcase i s fact u al l y si m i l ar t o S a rr io and t hatt he evi denc e i nt r oduc ed at pet i t i oner ’ s t r i alw as s uf f i c i entunder t hatN o. 08- 30582

6 c as e t o c onvi c thi m . I n so hol d i n g, h ow eve r , t he di st r i c tc our tal so not ed t hat T o u ch et and S a rr io “are in si gn i fi ca n t t en sion i n term s of t h eir reas on i n g.” W e f i nd a de no vo res ol u t i on of t h e cl ai m t o b e un n ecess ary i n t h i s c ase be c aus e AE D PApr o hibi t s i s s uanc e of t he w r i t
. U nde r2 8 U
. S. C. § 2 25 4( a) , t he fe de r alc o ur t s ha ve j ur i s di c t i o n t o h ear a pe t i t i o n f o ra w r i to f

ha be as c o r pus m a d e on b eh a l f of a p erso n i n cu stod y p u rsu a n t t o th e j u d gm en t of a sta te cou rt. T h at j u ri sdi ct i on m ay be exerci sed on l y f or the pu rpose of determ i n i n g w h et h er t h at pers on i s “ i n custody i n vi ol ati on of t h e C on st i t u t i on or l aw s ort reat i es of t h e U n i t ed S t ates. ” 28 U
. S

. C

. § 2254 ( a)

. Th e court ' s pow er t o gran tha beas rel i ef i s l i m i t e d by AE D PA , as c o di f i e d at 28 U
. S. C. § 22 54 ( d)

. Se c t i on 225 4( d) provi des: A n a p p li ca tion fora w r it o f h a b e a s c o rp u s o n b e h a lf o f a p e r s o n in cu s to d yp u r s u a n t t o th e ju d g m e n t o f a S ta te co u r t s h a ll n otbe gran t ed w i t h res pect t o a n y c la i m t h at w as adjudic ated on t he m e r i t s i n St at e co ur tpr o c e e di ngs unl e s s t he adj udi c at i o n o f t he c l a i m– ( 1) r es ul t ed i n a dec i si on t hatw as c ont r ar y t o, ori nvol ved an unreas onabl e a ppl i c at i on o f, c l ear l y e stabl i she d Feder all aw , as determ i n ed by t h e Su prem e C ou rtof t h e U n i t ed S t ates; or (2 ) r e s u lte d in a d e c is io n th a t w a s b a s e d o n a n u n r e a s o n a b le de t e r m i nat i o n o f

t he fac t s i n l i ghto f

t he e vi de nc e pr e s e nt e d i n t he St at e c our tpr oc ee di ng. 28 U
. S. C. § 2 2 5 4 ( d )

. The p hr a s e “ c l e a r l y e s t a b l i s he d Fe d e r a l l a w[] as det er m i ned by t he Suprem e Courtof t he U ni t ed St at es ” m eans “ t he hol di ngs, as o ppo s e d t o t he di c t a, of [ t h e Supr e m e Cour t ' s ] de c i s i o ns a s o f t he t i m e o f

t he relev a n t st a te-cou rt de ci sion
. ” Wi l l i am s v. T aylor , 5 2 9 U .S

. 3 6 2 , 4 1 2 (20 0 0 ). H ere, t h e di st ri ctcourthel d that t h e st ate courts ’deci si on s w ere c on t rary t o o ri nvol ved an unreas onabl e a ppl i c at i on o f c l ear l y e st abl i she d fede r all aw b e c a u s e th e yfa ile d t o a d e q u a te lye x p la in t h e irr e a s o n in g . W e h a v e re p e a te d ly h eld th a t ha b ea s reli ef i s n ot a u th orized u n d er A E D P Am ere l y b eca u se th e sta teN o. 08- 30582

7 c o u r ts p r o v id e d in a d e q u a te re a s o n in g . S ee , e . g. , Pon dex t e rv. D r e t ke , 346 F. 3d 1 4 2 , 1 4 8 -4 9 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ); Nea l v
. P u ck ett , 286 F
. 3d 230 , 246 ( 5th C i r. 200 2) ( en b a n c ) (p e rcu r ia m ); D iL o sa v. Ca in , 2 7 9 F .3 d 2 5 9 , 2 6 2 ( 5 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ); Sant e l l an v . Co ck re ll , 2 7 1 F .3 d 1 9 0 , 1 9 3 ( 5 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). In d e e d , Sant e l l an , l i ke t he i ns t ant case, i n vol ved a suf

f i ci en cy- of

- t h e- evi den ce c l ai m asser t ed p u rsuan tt o Jackson , an d th e fe d e ra l di st ri ctcourt ’ s di sregard of A E D P Adu e t o t h e st ate c ou rt s’ i n ad equ ate r eason i n g. “ T o b egi n w i t h , the [ di st ri ct ] cou rta pp eared to i n t erpret A E D P Ato a u t h o r iz e h a b e a s r e li e f s o le ly b e c a u s e itfo u n d th e s t a t e c o u r t ’s
r eas oni ng unsat i sfac t or y. Th e pl ai n l anguage of A E D PA , as w el las t he r ul i ngs of ou r si ster circuits, ren d ers th i s rea son i n g u n ten a b l e.” Sant e l l an , 271 F. 3d at 194
. R ather t h an a sses si n g t h e qu al i t y of t h e st ate c ou rt s’reasoni n g, t h e di st ri ct
cou rt sh ou l d h a ve con sider ed on l y “ th e ulti m a te l eg a lcon cl u sion tha t t h e sta te
c o ur tr e ac he d a nd n ot
. . . w h et h er t h e st ate c ou rtconsi dered a n d d i scu ssed
ev ery an gle of t h e ev i d en ce.” Ne al , 286 F
. 3d a t 2 4 6
. “ T h e onl y qu est i on f or a fe d e r a l h a b e a s co u r t is w h e th e rth e s ta te co u r t’s d e te r m in a tio n is o b je c tiv e ly
u n rea son a b l e.” I

d. A ppl yi ng t hi s st andard, i ti s c l earthatJohn so n i s notent i t l ed t o habe as rel i ef

. A s t h e Su prem e C ou rtha s expl ai n ed, t h e Jackson “ st andard m ustbe ap pl i ed w i t h expl i ci tr e fer en ce t o t h e substanti ve el em en t s of t h e cr i m e as d ef i n e dby s t a t e la w. ” Jackson , 4 43 U
. S. at324 n. 16
. And “ [ s ] t at e c o ur t s a r e t he
u l ti m a te e xp ositors o f state law

. ” Mul l aney v . Wi l bur , 4 2 1 U .S

. 6 8 4 , 6 9 1 (19 7 5 ). Th us, w hen appl yi ng Jackson , the f ed era lh a b ea s cou rt m u st de fer t o th e sta te
c o u r t’s e x p lic a tio n o f s ta te la w . S ee McK ee v . Nix , 995 F
. 2d 833 , 836

- 37 (8t h C i r. 1 9 9 3 ); Jo ne s v. Th i ere t , 8 4 6 F .2 d 4 5 7 , 4 6 0 (7 th C ir . 1 9 8 8 ); seealso G arne rv. L ou i si ana , 3 6 8 U .S

. 1 5 7 , 1 6 6 (19 6 1 ) ( “W e of co u rs e a re b o u n d b ya S t a t e ’s i nt er pre t at i on o f

i t s ow n st at ut e a nd w i l lnots ubst i t ut e o ur j udgm entf ort hat of t h e State’ s w h en itb ecom es n ecess ary t o a n al yze t h e evi den ce f or t h e pu rpose o f d e t e r m in in gw h e th e r th a t ev id e n ce su p p o rts th e fi n d in g s o f a s ta te co u rt.”).N o. 08- 30582

8 T h e L ou i si an a st ate c ou rt s c ou l d h ave i nt erpret ed the st atute of convi ct i on as no tr e qui r i ng t hatt he e nt e r pr i s e ha ve a pur po s e s e pa r at e and ap ar tf r o m t he racketeer i n g act i vi t y. Th ei r deci si on w ou l d on l y be an u n reasona bl e app l i cat i on of or contrary t o Jackson i f th e e v iden ce i n t rodu ced at t ri alfel lshortbased on t hati n terp reta ti on. There c an be no di sput e t hatt he e vi denc e i nt r oduc ed at Jo hns o n’ s t r i alm e tt hi s m o r e l e ni e nti nt e r pr e t at i o n o f a n “ e nt e r pr i se” - - a nd, ap pl yi n g t h at def

i n i t i on , t h at t h ere w as s u ff i ci en tevi den ce t h at a group of i n di vi du al s assoc i ated t ogether t o eng age i n racket eeri n g ac tiv iti e s t o sup port h is co n v ic tio n . I V . C ONC L US I ON W e c o n c lu d e th a tJ o h n s o n is n o te n t it le d t o r e li e f b e c a u s e t h e s t a t e c o u r t ’s d e cisio n w a s n o t co n tra ry to, n o r d idit in v o lve a n u n re a so n a b le a p p li ca tion of,
c le a r lye s ta b lis h e d fe d e r a l la w . S ee2 8 U. S

. C. § 2 2 5 4 ( d ) ( 1 )

. A c c o r d i n g l y , we A F F IR M the j u d gm en t of the distri ct cou rt.