Trung Tran v. Robert Horel

MEMORANDUM

Petitioner-Appellant Trung Tran, a state prisoner, appeals the district court’s denial of his habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 , 2253, and we affirm.

We review de novo the district court’s denial of a habeas petition. Brown v. Ornoski, 503 F.3d 1006, 1010 (9th Cir.2007). Tran’s habeas petition is governed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”). Under the AED-PA, we must determine whether the state court proceedings “resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1). Where, as here, the state court provides no reasoning to support its decision, we still apply AEDPA deference. See Himes v. Thompson, 336 F.3d 848, 853 (9th Cir.2003). Our task is to “perform an independent review of the record to ascertain whether the state court decision is objectively unreasonable.” Id. (internal quotations and citation omitted).

Tran argues that the state court unreasonably applied the Supreme Court’s decision in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61…