Minto Minto v. Ramon Mafnas

MEMORANDUM

Petitioner — Appellant Minto appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction for conspiring to violate and soliciting a violation of the marriage fraud law of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (“NMI”), 3 CMC § 4866. Specifically, Minto asserts that there was insufficient evidence of mens rea presented at his trial. We affirm.

When evaluating a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, a court considers “whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979) (emphasis in original). This is a “deferential” standard. Boyer v. Belleque, 659 F.3d 957, 964 (9th Cir.2011). Our review here is doubly deferential because it is governed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”). The NMI Supreme Court determined that there was sufficient evidence to convict Minto; under AEDPA we may not grant relief unless that decision “was…