Gregory Lynn Harris v. Michael Budge

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GREGORY LYNN HARRIS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
MICHAEL BUDGE,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 09-15507
D.C. No. 2:05-cv-01191-JCM-
LRL
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
James C. Mahan, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 10, 2010**
San Francisco, California
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TROTT and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Gregory Harris appeals the district court’s dismissal of his petition for a writ
of habeas corpus, which alleged a violation of his right to due process under the
Fourteenth Amendment. Harris argues that there was insufficient evidence to
FILED
FEB 12 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
support his convictions for three charges: (a) Trafficking of a Controlled
Substance; (b) Conspiracy to Commit Robbery; and (c) Living From the Earnings
of a Prostitute. Harris filed his federal habeas petition after April 24, 1996;
therefore the provisions of the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act
(“AEDPA”) govern this case. Juan H. v. Allen, 408 F.3d 1262, 1270 (9th Cir.
2005) (citing Chein v. Shumsky, 373 F.3d 978, 983 (9th Cir. 2004) (en banc)). We
have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review de novo a district
court’s denial of a state prisoner’s petition for habeas relief, Juan H., 408 F.3d at
1269 n.7, and we affirm.
In Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307(1979), the Supreme Court established
the “standard [that] is to be applied in a federal habeas corpus proceeding when the
claim is made that a person has been convicted in a state court upon insufficient
evidence.” Id. at 309. The Court held that “the critical inquiry on review of the
sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction must be . . . to
determine whether the record evidence could reasonably support a finding of guilt
beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. at 318. “After AEDPA, we apply the standards of
Jackson with an additional layer of deference.” Juan H., 408 F.3d at 1274 (citing
28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)). After reviewing the record, we conclude that there was

-- 2 of 3 --

3
sufficient evidence for a rational juror to find beyond a reasonable doubt that
Harris was guilty of these three offenses.
Harris also presented two uncertified issues in his opening brief, alleging
violations of his right to confront witnesses under the Sixth Amendment and right
to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. Because reasonable jurists
would not find either of the uncertified issues submitted to be debatable, we
decline to expand the certificate of appealability.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --