Case Name: Richard GUZMAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Joe MCGRATH, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-06-17
Citations: 134 F. App'x 211
Docket Number: No. 04-55974; D.C. No. CV-00-11846-MMM
Parties: Richard GUZMAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Joe MCGRATH, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before KLEINFELD, TASHIMA, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 134
Pages: 211–211

Head Matter:
Richard GUZMAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Joe MCGRATH, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 04-55974.
D.C. No. CV-00-11846-MMM.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 14, 2005.
Decided June 17, 2005.
Stephen M. Lathrop, Esq., Lathrop & Villa, Torrance, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.
David A. Voet, Office of the California Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before KLEINFELD, TASHIMA, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
California state prisoner Richard Guzman appeals the district court's judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition challenging the sufficiency of the evidence. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
Guzman contends that there was insufficient evidence to convict him for both first degree murder and attempted murder. We disagree. Viewed in the light most favorable to the government, a review of the record demonstrates that a rational trier of fact could have found all the essential elements for conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979).
Accordingly, the California Court of Appeal's decision was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.