Case Name: Ricardo HENRY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. C.M. HARRISON, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-01-26
Citations: 362 F. App'x 887
Docket Number: No. 07-55684
Parties: Ricardo HENRY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. C.M. HARRISON, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 362
Pages: 887–888

Head Matter:
Ricardo HENRY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. C.M. HARRISON, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 07-55684.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 11, 2010.
Filed Jan. 26, 2010.
Ricardo Henry, Imperial, CA, pro se.
Douglas L. Wilson, AGCA-Offiee of the California Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, 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 Ricardo Henry appeals from the district court's judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
Henry contends that his due process right to a fair trial was violated because there was insufficient evidence to support the convictions for first degree robbery, first degree burglary, and attempted murder.
The district court properly determined that the California Court of Appeal did not unreasonably apply Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979) in determining that, taking the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational factfinder could have found the essential elements of his convictions beyond a reasonable doubt. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); see also Juan H. v. Allen, 408 F.3d 1262, 1275 (9th Cir.2005).
Henry's motion to expand the certificate of appealability is denied. See 9th Cir. R. 22 — 1(e); see also Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir.1999) (per cu-riam).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.