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 H onor abl e W i l l i a m H . A l br i tt on, I I I , S e ni orD i s tr i c tJ udge f orthe ** U . S . D i s tr i c tC our tf

orM i ddl e A l aba m a , 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 BR OO KEY LEE W ES T, P e titio n e r- A p p e lla n t, v. S H E R Y L F O S T E R ; e t a l., R es po nd ent s - A pp el l ee . N o. 10- 17244 D. C . No . 2 : 0 7 - c v - 0 0 0 2 1 - KJ DG WF 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 K e ntJ . D a w s on, D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d O c t obe r12, 2011 S a n F r a n c is c o , C a lif

o rn ia B e f or e : T H O M A S a nd M U R G U I A , C i r c ui tJ udge s , a nd A L B R I T T O N , S e ni or D i stri ctJudg e. ** B r ooke y L e e W e s t( “ W e s t ” ) appe a l s the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s de ni a l of he r28 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 p e titio n f o ra w r it o f

h ab e a s c o rp u s . 

# FI LED OC T 24 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

W e s ta r gue s tha tthe N e va da S upr e m e C our tvi ol a t e d the A nt i t e rr or i s m a nd E ff ec t i ve D ea th P enal ty A ct(“ A E D P A ”) by ac t i ng contra ryt o cl ea rl y e st abl i shed f e d e r a l la w a s d e te r m in e d b y th e S u p r e m e C o u r t w h e n it d e te r m in e d th a t th e S ta te prod uced suff

i ci entevi dence t o est abl i sh thatthe vi ct i m di ed by the cr i m i nal a g e n c y o f

a n o th e r( th e “c o rp u s d e lic ti” e le m e n t) . See 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 4 4 ( d ) . M o r e o v e r , W e s t s e e k s to e x p a n d th e s c o p e o f th e C e r tif

ic a te o f A p p e a lab ility grant ed by the di stri ctcourt . B ec ause the hi st ory a nd fa ct s of the ca se ar e f am i l i ar to th e p a r tie s , w e n e e d n o t r e c o u n t th e m h e r e . T hi s c our tr e vi e w s the de ni a l of a pe t i t i on f

ora w r i tof

habe a s c orpus pur s ua ntt o 28 U . S . C . § 2254 de no vo . D ow s v . W ood , 21 1 F . 3d 48 0, 48 4 (9th C i r. 20 00 ). T he st andard of revi ew by fe dera l court s of s t at e c ou rtdeci si on s gov erned b y A E D P A i s a “ h i g h l y d eferen t i al st an d ard fo r ev al u at i n g st at e-co u rtru l i n g s, w h ic h d e m a n d s th a t s ta te - c o u r t d e c is io n s b e g iv e n th e b e n e f it o f th e d o u b t." W o o d fo r d v . V is c io tti , 53 7 U . S . 19 , 24 (200 2) (percuri am ) ( ci t at i on and i nt ernal q u o tati o n m ar k s o m itted ). A s p erth e A E D P A , th e N ev ad a S u p re m e C o u rt’s de c i s i on m us tha ve be e n a n unr e a s onabl e appl i c a t i on of S upr e m e C our tpr e c e de nt to w a rr a n t aw r it o f

h ab e a s c o rp u s . Se e S i ms v . R ow land , 4 1 4 F .3 d 1 1 4 8 , 1 1 5 1 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) .3

W e a f f irm th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d e n ia l o f W e s t’s p e titio n f

o rh ab e a s c o rp u s . I n J a c k s o n v . V ir g in ia , the S upr e m e C our tpr ovi de d the s t a nda r d f orde t e r m i ni ng the suff i ci encyof the evi dence ata c ri m i nal tri al . 44 3 U . S . 30 7 (19 79 ). T he C ou rt e xpl a i ne d tha t“ the r e l e va ntque s t i on i s w he the r , a f t e rvi e w i ng the e vi de nc e i n the lig h t m o s t f

a v o r ab le to th e p r o s e c u tio n , any r a t i ona l tr i e rof f a c tc oul d ha ve f

ound the es se nt i al el em ent s of the cr i m e bey on d a re as on abl e dou bt . ” I d. a t319 ( c i t i ng J ohns on v . L ouis i ana , 4 0 6 U .S . 3 5 6 , 3 6 2 ( 1 9 7 2 ) ) . W es t ’ s pri m ary a rgum entfocuse s on the i nd et erm i nancy of the m edi ca l evi dence. T hatar gu m ent , ho w ever , ov er l oo ks other c i rc um st ant i al evi dence re l i ed on by the N e va da S upr e m e C our ti nc l udi ng: the m a nne ri n w hi c h the vi c t i m ’ s body w a s f o u n d , th e p la s tic b a g tie d o v e rh e rf a c e , e v id e n c e o f

th e u n h e a lth y r e la tio n s h ip betw ee n W es tand the vi ct i m , and evi dence i nd i ca t i ng thatW es tfabri ca t ed a s t ory o f m o v in g th e v ic tim to C a lif o rn iae v e n b e f

o r e s h e d is ap p e a r e d . V ie w in g th e f a c ts i n thi s c as e i n the l i gh tm ostfa vo rabl e t o the prosecut i on , thi s C ou rtca nn otsa y that the N evada S up re m e C ou rt ’ s dec i si on t o u ph ol d W es t ’ s c on vi ct i on w as u n r e a s o n ab le . B e c a us e the N e va da S upr e m e C our t ’ s de c i s i on c om por t s w i th the r e qui r e m e nt s of

28 U . S . C . § 2254( d) , W e s t ’ s pe t i t i on w a s appr opr i a t e l y de ni e d.4

A s t o W e s t ’ s r e que s tt o e xpa nd the C e r t i f i c a t e of A ppe a l abi l i ty t o i nc l ude tw o othe ri s s ue s , the C our tf i nds tha tno r e a s onabl e j ur i s tc oul d de ba t e the corr ec tness of the di stri ctcourt ’ s rul i ng on these i ss ues. A cc ordi ng l y, the C ou rt d ecl i n es t o ex p an d th e cert i fi cat e o f ap p eal ab i l i ty. T h e d is t r ic t c o u r t ’ s d e n ia l o f W e s t ’ s p e t it io n f

o r h a b e a s c o r p u s is A FFI R M ED .