Chris C. Menefee v. Tom Felker

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).
EOH/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHRIS C. MENEFEE,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
TOM FELKER,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 08-55657
D.C. No. 2:06-cv-08096-CAS
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Christina A. Snyder, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 16, 2010**
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Chris C. Menefee appeals from the district court’s
order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
FILED
MAR 02 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

EOH/Research 08-55657 2
Menefee contends that there was insufficient evidence to support the jury’s
finding that he committed the offense “with the specific intent to promote, further,
or assist in any criminal conduct by gang members” under California Penal Code
section 186.22(b)(1). The record reflects that the state court’s rejection of this
claim was neither contrary to, nor involved an unreasonable application of, clearly
established federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); see also Jackson v. Virginia,
443 U.S. 307, 324 (1979).
Menefee’s motion to expand the certificate of appealability is denied. See
9th Cir. R. 22-1(e); see also Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir.
1999) (per curiam).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --