Case Name: Rigoberto ZUNIGA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. William SULLIVAN, Warden, California Correctional Institution; Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, State of California, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-07-20
Citations: 235 F. App'x 463
Docket Number: No. 06-55803
Parties: Rigoberto ZUNIGA, Petitioner—Appellant, v. William SULLIVAN, Warden, California Correctional Institution; Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, State of California, Respondents—Appellees.
Judges: Before: KOZINSKI, KLEINFELD and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 235
Pages: 463–464

Head Matter:
Rigoberto ZUNIGA, Petitioner—Appellant, v. William SULLIVAN, Warden, California Correctional Institution; Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, State of California, Respondents—Appellees.
No. 06-55803.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 11, 2007.
Filed July 20, 2007.
David J. Zugman, Esq., San Diego, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.
Robert S. Henry, Esq., Office of the California Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA, for Respondents-Appellees.
Before: KOZINSKI, KLEINFELD and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
1. The jury had evidence that petitioner was a "pledge" to a street gang, that his brother-in-law was a member of that gang, and that petitioner committed assault in association with, and in support of, his brother-in-law. This evidence is sufficient to support a sentence enhancement pursuant to California Penal Code § 186.22(b), which applies to felonies committed "in association with any criminal street gang" and "with the specific intent to . assist in any criminal conduct by gang members." Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979).
2. Because we reach this conclusion even without according deference to the California Court of Appeal's determination, we need not consider petitioner's argument that 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)'s standard of deference does not apply.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.