Case Name: Chon Patrick DIMAS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Nathaniel QUARTERMAN, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-10-26
Citations: 204 F. App'x 357
Docket Number: No. 05-41094
Parties: Chon Patrick DIMAS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Nathaniel QUARTERMAN, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 204
Pages: 357–357

Head Matter:
Chon Patrick DIMAS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Nathaniel QUARTERMAN, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 05-41094
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Oct. 26, 2006.
Chon Patrick Dimas, Brazoria, TX, pro se.
Elizabeth A. Goettert, Forrest Lumpkin, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Texas, Austin, TX, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Chon Patrick Dimas, Texas prisoner #851077, appeals the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for habeas relief. Dimas claims that his federal rights were violated 1) because the state trial court admitted evidence of his commission of an extraneous burglary and 2) because the evidence at trial was insufficient to support the jury's verdict that he was guilty of murder.
We have reviewed the record and the briefs submitted by the parties and hold that Dimas failed to meet his burden of establishing that the state court's adjudication of his claims resulted in a decision that was contrary to federal law, or was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the state court proceedings. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 402-13, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000); Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L,Ed.2d 560 (1979); Story v. Collins, 920 F.2d 1247, 1254 (5th Cir.1991); Aguilar v. Dretke, 428 F.3d 526, 534 (5th Cir.2005). Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.