Heinrichs

MEMORANDUM **

Stuart Heinrichs appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. Heinrichs was convicted in state court on three counts involving the anal penetration of his three-month-old daughter: sexual penetration with a foreign object, criminal mistreatment in the first degree and assault in the fourth degree. On appeal, Heinrichs asserts that his conviction was based on insufficient evidence.

The district court’s denial of a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition is reviewed de novo. See Dows v. Wood, 211 F.3d 480, 484 (9th Cir.2000). A properly preserved sufficiency of the evidence challenge is also reviewed de novo. See United States v. Munoz, 233 F.3d 1117, 1129 (9th Cir.2000) (citing United States v. Tucker, 133 F.3d 1208, 1214 (9th Cir.1998)). “[A]ll reasonable inferences are to be drawn in favor of the government, and any conflicts in evidence are to be resolved in favor of the [fact finder’s] verdict.” 1 See United States v. Alvarez-Valenzuela, 231 F.3d 1198, 1201-02 (9th Cir.2000) (citing United States v. Laykin, 886 F.2d 1534, 1539 (9th Cir.1989)).

Where the district court fails to provide the basis of its decision, we independently review…