Case Name: Eric David HOFFERT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Charles L. RYAN and State of Arizona Attorney General, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-01-27
Citations: 467 F. App'x 657
Docket Number: No. 09-17536
Parties: Eric David HOFFERT, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Charles L. RYAN and State of Arizona Attorney General, Respondents—Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 467
Pages: 657–658

Head Matter:
Eric David HOFFERT, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Charles L. RYAN and State of Arizona Attorney General, Respondents—Appellees.
No. 09-17536.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 17, 2012.
Filed Jan. 27, 2012.
Eric David Hoffert, Florence, AZ, pro se.
Michael Tighe O’Toole, Esquire, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix, AZ, for Respondents-Appellees.
Before: LEAVY, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. Appellant. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Arizona state prisoner Eric David Hoffert 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.
Hoffert contends that his due process rights were violated because he was convicted for conduct not prohibited by Arizona law. Specifically, he contends that Arizona Revised Statute § 13-1304(A) requires the state to prove that Hoffert possessed the intent to commit a sexual offense at the time that he initially restrained the victim or, at the latest, prior to his departure from the state. There is no convincing evidence that the Arizona Supreme Court would have rejected the Court of Appeals' interpretation. See In re Watts, 298 F.3d 1077, 1082 (9th Cir. 2002). Accordingly, the state court's decision was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); Fiore v. White, 531 U.S. 225, 228-29, 121 S.Ct. 712, 148 L.Ed.2d 629 (2001) (per curiam) (due process clause forbids a state to convict a person of a crime without proving the elements of that crime beyond a reasonable doubt).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.