22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T4b2,MEMORANDUM California state prisoner Tony Jose Car-apia 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. Carapia contends there was insufficient evidence to support the jury’s finding he committed the offense “for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with” a criminal street gang and “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); Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318-19 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). The record further demonstrates that the state court’s decision was not based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the state court proceedings. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(2). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T4df,

MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Tony Jose Car-apia 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.

Carapia contends there was insufficient evidence to support the jury’s finding he committed the offense “for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with” a criminal street gang and “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); Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318-19 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). The record further demonstrates that the state court’s decision was not based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the state court proceedings. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(2).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.