Case Name: Frank BOWMAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. James E. TILTON, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-07-14
Citations: 339 F. App'x 707
Docket Number: No. 08-55214
Parties: Frank BOWMAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. James E. TILTON, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, FERNANDEZ, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 339
Pages: 707–708

Head Matter:
Frank BOWMAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. James E. TILTON, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 08-55214.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted July 8, 2009.
Filed July 14, 2009.
Janet Tung, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.
Gary W. Schons, Esquire, Office of the California Attorney General, San Diego, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, FERNANDEZ, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
The state court's conclusion that sufficient evidence supports Bowman's convictions for conspiracy and being a felon in possession of a firearm is not contrary to or an objectively unreasonable application of Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979).
Likewise, the state court's conclusion that sufficient evidence supports the firearm enhancements was not contrary to or an objectively unreasonable application of Jackson.
The state court's determination that Bowman's sentence does not violate the Eighth Amendment is also not contrary to or an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent. In light of the gravity of Bowman's offenses of conviction and his significant criminal history, this is not an "exceedingly rare" or "extreme" case giving rise to an inference of gross dispropor-tionality. See Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 73, 123 S.Ct. 1166, 155 L.Ed.2d 144 (2003); Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U.S. 263, 272-73,100 S.Ct. 1133, 63 L.Ed.2d 382 (1980).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.