Peter Sands Whitelow v. Samuel Sublett Attorney General of the State of Arizona

97 F.3d 1463 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Peter Sands WHITELOW, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Samuel SUBLETT; Attorney General of the State of Arizona, Respondents-Appellees. No. 96-15527. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Sept. 10, 1996. * Decided Sept. 12, 1996. Before: FLETCHER, BRUNETTI, and JOHN T. NOONAN, Jr., Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Peter Sands Whitelow, an Arizona state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. Whitelow contends that his conviction was an inconsistent verdict and thus must have been based on his race. The jury convicted Whitelow of one count of attempted sexual assault, but could not reach a verdict on another count and acquitted Whitelow on five other counts. We review de novo. Calderon v. Prunty, 59 F.3d 1005, 1008 (9th Cir.1995). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we affirm. 3 Even if the verdict is inconsistent, it…