Eliseo German v. ROBERT A. HOREL, Warden

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The Honorable Kevin Thomas Duffy, United States District Judge for**
the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ELISEO GERMAN,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
ROBERT A. HOREL, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 10-55130
D.C. No. 2:08-cv-04543-AHM-RZ
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
A. Howard Matz, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted June 8, 2012
Pasadena, California
Before: TROTT and BYBEE, Circuit Judges, and DUFFY, District Judge.**
A jury convicted Eliseo German of assault with force likely to result in great
bodily injury and found that he committed the assault for the benefit of a criminal
street gang in violation of California Penal Code section 186.22(b)(1). See People
FILED
JUN 18 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
v. Mesa, No. S185688, ___ P.3d ___, slip op. at 8 (Cal. June 4, 2012). On appeal,
the California Court of Appeal affirmed.
Through a habeas petition, German now challenges the gang enhancement as
not supported by substantial evidence. See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307
(1979).
“Jackson claims face a high bar in federal habeas proceedings because they
are subject to two layers of judicial deference.” Coleman v. Johnson, No. 11-1053,
566 U.S. ___, slip op. at 1 (May 29, 2012) (per curiam); see also Parker v.
Matthews, No. 11-845, 567 U.S. ___, slip op. at 7 (June 11, 2012) (per curiam)
(applying this “twice-deferential standard” and holding that a state supreme court’s
rejection of a Jackson claim was “controlling in this federal habeas proceeding”).
On habeas review, we “may not overturn a state court decision rejecting a
sufficiency of the evidence challenge simply because [we] disagree[] with the state
court”; rather, we may do so only if the state court decision was “objectively
unreasonable.” Coleman, slip op. at 1-2 (internal quotation marks omitted).
Here, the testimony of a gang expert regarding, among other things, how a
gang might benefit from committing attacks on others was sufficient to support the
gang enhancement.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --