Raymond Oubichon v. Michael Evans

MEMORANDUM

Petitioner Raymond L. Oubichon appeals the denial of his petition for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . The district court issued a certificate of appeala-bility with respect to several claims for relief. We review de novo. Kemp v. Ryan, 638 F.3d 1245, 1254 (9th Cir.2011). Because the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 applies to this case, we ask whether the state courts unreasonably applied clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court. 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d). For the state courts’ application of clearly established law to be unreasonable under § 2254(d), we must conclude that no fair-minded jurist could agree with the state court’s decision. Harrington v. Richter, — U.S. —, 131 S.Ct. 770, 786 , 178 L.Ed.2d 624 (2011). Because we hold that the state courts reasonably applied clearly established federal law in this case, we affirm.

1. Petitioner first argues that the state court violated due process when it entered a conviction for attempted criminal threat without submitting the question to a jury. But a jury already had convicted Petitioner of the greater offense of making a criminal threat. That offense contains every…