MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Matthew Kas-per appeals the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. He argues there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction for attempted robbery and assault with a firearm. We review de novo the district court’s order denying habeas relief. Juan H. v. Allen, 408 F.3d 1262 , 1269 n. 7 (9th Cir.2005). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

When reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we consider “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). Pursuant to the Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, “we apply the standards of Jackson with an additional layer of deference.” Juan H., 408 F.3d at 1274 (citing § 2254(d)).

Petitioner argues the victim’s in-court identification of him was unreliable and that the victim was not credible. Our review of the record shows there was sufficient evidence to allow a reasonable fact finder to convict petitioner. It was the jury’s task to weigh the victim’s credibility. Guy v. City of San Diego, 608 F.3d 582, 585 (9th Cir.2010). Conflicting evidence was introduced regarding the description of the suspects, but the victim’s description was consistent with petitioner’s appearance. And the record contains reasons to doubt the probative value of the victim’s failure to identify petitioner in a photographic lineup. We must presume the jury “resolved any ... conflicts in favor of the prosecution.” Jackson, 443 U.S. at 326 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 .

Some of' the evidence against petitioner was circumstantial. For example, petitioner admitted he was present at the incident. But the state court’s determination that the evidence was sufficient to support petitioner’s conviction is not “contrary to” or “an unreasonable application” of Jackson and is not “based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.” § 2254(d). Accordingly, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.

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