Case Name: Lionel HANSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Scott KERNAN and Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-06-03
Citations: 435 F. App'x 669
Docket Number: No. 10-16129
Parties: Lionel HANSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Scott KERNAN and Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 435
Pages: 669–670

Head Matter:
Lionel HANSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Scott KERNAN and Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 10-16129.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 24, 2011.
Filed June 3, 2011.
Lionel Hanson, Represa, CA, pro se.
David Alan Rhodes, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Respondents-Appellees.
Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
California state prisoner Lionel Hanson appeals pro se from the district court's judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
Hanson contends that the evidence introduced at his trial was insufficient to support the jury's true finding on a criminal street gang enhancement. This contention lacks merit because a rational trier of fact could have found that the prosecution proved the essential elements of the enhancement beyond a reasonable doubt. See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); People v. Gardeley, 14 Cal.4th 605, 624 n. 10, 59 Cal.Rptr.2d 356, 927 P.2d 713 (1996). We are bound by the California Court of Appeal's interpretation of state law in Hanson's direct appeal. See Medley v. Runnels, 506 F.3d 857, 862 (9th Cir.2007) (en banc).
Accordingly, the state court's decision rejecting Hanson's claim was not contrary to, and did not involve an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States, nor was it based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in state court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.