Paul Junior Ramirez v. DAVID L. RUNNELS, Warden

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without**
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
EG/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PAUL JUNIOR RAMIREZ,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
DAVID L. RUNNELS, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 07-56453
D.C. No. CV-04-00435-DSF
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Dale S. Fischer, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 17, 2009**
Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Paul Junior Ramirez appeals from the district
court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
FILED
DEC 14 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

EG/Research 07-56453 2
Ramirez contends that insufficient evidence supported his jury conviction
for aiding and abetting attempted murder. However, the California Court of
Appeal’s determination that, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to
the prosecution, a rational trier of fact could have found Ramirez guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt was not an unreasonable application of federal law. See Jackson
v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979) (describing standard for reviewing
sufficiency of evidence claim).
Ramirez also contends that the trial court violated his constitutional right to
present his theory of the case to the jury by refusing to instruct the jury on
imperfect self-defense. However, the district court correctly determined that there
was no evidence from which a jury reasonably could have concluded that the
shooter had an actual but unreasonable belief that his life was in imminent danger.
See Solis v. Garcia, 219 F.3d 922, 929 (9th Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (no
constitutional error in refusing to give instruction where no substantial evidence
supported it).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --