Case Name: Raul RAMOS, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Michael EVANS, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-11-28
Citations: 488 F. App'x 273
Docket Number: No. 10-55758
Parties: Raul RAMOS, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Michael EVANS, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before: D.W. NELSON and O’SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judges, and SINGLETON, Senior District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 488
Pages: 273–274

Head Matter:
Raul RAMOS, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Michael EVANS, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 10-55758.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Nov. 7, 2012.
Filed Nov. 28, 2012.
Randy Stuart Kravis, Law Office of Randy S. Kravis, Studio City, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.
David A. Voet, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before: D.W. NELSON and O’SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judges, and SINGLETON, Senior District Judge.
The Honorable James K. Singleton, Senior District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Petitioner Raul Ramos appeals the district court's denial of his petition for habe-as corpus, brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He argues that the state court unreasonably applied the Supreme Court's decision in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979), in concluding that there was sufficient evidence to find that his prior offense constituted a strike under the California Three Strikes Law. We disagree. Under AED-PA, we apply the standards of Jackson with an additional layer of deference. See Juan H. v. Allen, 408 F.3d 1262, 1274 (9th Cir.2005). Under that deferential standard, a rational trier of fact could have found that Ramos's prior conviction constituted a strike.
Ramos did not raise his claim under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000) in his federal habeas petition, and thus, the claim is barred under AEDPA's one-year statute of limitations. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.