David Ronald Ramos v. William J. Bunnell, Warden Attorney General of the State of California

69 F.3d 544 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. David Ronald RAMOS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. William J. BUNNELL, Warden; Attorney General of the State of California, Respondents-Appellees. No. 95-55367. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Oct. 11, 1995. * Decided Oct. 20, 1995. Before: BEEZER, THOMPSON, and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 California prisoner David Ronald Ramos appeals the district court's dismissal of his habeas corpus petition brought under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254 . Ramos contends that he was unconstitutionally denied the benefit of a change in state law regarding peremptory jury challenges, and that the evidence was insufficient to find him guilty as an aider and abettor to murder. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Secs. 1291 , 2253. We review the denial of a habeas petition de novo, Calderon v. Prunty, 59 F.3d 1005, 1008 (9th Cir.1995), and affirm. 3 The state contends that Ramos procedurally defaulted on…