Connor
Connor v. Espinda
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM *
William Connor appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . We affirm. Because the parties are familiar with the factual and procedural history of this case, we will not recount it here.
We review a district court’s decision to deny a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition de novo. Alcala v. Woodford, 334 F.3d 862, 868 (9th Cir.2003). To be entitled to relief under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“ADEPA”), a federal habeas petitioner must demonstrate that the state court’s adjudication of the merits resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States, or resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts. Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63 , 123 S.Ct. 1166, 1172-73 , 155 L.Ed.2d 144 (2003). Under AED-PA, state court findings of fact are to be presumed correct unless the petitioner rebuts the presumption with clear and convincing evidence. See 28 U.S.C. 2254(e)(1); Davis v. Woodford, 333 F.3d 982, 991 (9th Cir.2003).