Case Name: Louis WATSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Thomas CAREY, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-07-06
Citations: 328 F. App'x 533
Docket Number: No. 07-17039
Parties: Louis WATSON, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Thomas CAREY, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before: PAEZ, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 328
Pages: 533–533

Head Matter:
Louis WATSON, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Thomas CAREY, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 07-17039.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 16, 2009.
Filed July 6, 2009.
Louis Watson, Vacaville, CA, pro se.
Lisa Ashley Ott, Esquire, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before: PAEZ, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
California state prisoner Louis Watson appeals pro se from the district court's judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
Watson contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his state court convictions for theft by false pretenses and burglary under California Penal Code § 368(d) and 459. We conclude that any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crimes beyond a reasonable doubt, see Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979), and that the state court decision was not contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, nor was it based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the state court proceeding, 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.