Mefford

MEMORANDUM *

Russell Eugene Mefford (“Mefford”), a California state prisoner, appeals the federal district court’s denial of his habeas petition challenging his conviction for first degree murder. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2258 . We review de novo a district court’s denial of a habeas petition, see Duckett v. Godinez, 67 F.3d 734, 739 (9th Cir.1995), and we affirm.

Federal habeas appeals are governed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, which requires this Court to examine whether the state court determinations were “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1). Under this standard, habeas relief is available only when we are firmly convinced that the state court clearly erred in its application of federal law. Van Tran v. Lindsey, 212 F.3d 1143, 1153-54 (9th Cir. 2000).

I. SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE

Mefford raises three errors in his habeas appeal. First, Mefford claims that his conviction was based on an erroneous jury instruction on lying-in-wait, in violation of due process. After hearing the evidence, the jury was allowed to convict…