Stephen Nefstad v. George Baldwin

66 F.3d 335 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Stephen NEFSTAD, Petitioner-Appellant, v. George BALDWIN, Respondent-Appellee. No. 94-35714. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted July 12, 1995. Decided Sept. 1, 1995. 1 Before: GOODWIN and HUG, Circuit Judges, and SCHWARZER, * District Judge. 2 MEMORANDUM ** 3 Stephen Nefstad, an Oregon state prisoner, appeals the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254 habeas petition. He claims that (1) the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal because the State failed to establish proper venue and jurisdiction; (2) his due process rights were violated by two separate instances of prosecutorial misconduct; (3) his due process rights were violated by trial court evidentiary rulings; and (4) the trial court erred by not giving his requested jury instructions. We affirm. I. 4 Nefstad contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of…