Galaza

Rogers v. Galaza

Good Law
90 F. App'x 206
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJanuary 14, 2004No. 02-55337; D.C. No. CV-00-09901-DTCalifornia991 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

California state prisoner Steven Rex Rogers appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition challenging his conviction for selling a substance in lieu of a controlled substance in violation of California Health and Safety Code § 11355. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253 and affirm.

Because Rogers filed his federal habeas petition after April 24, 1996, the Antiter-rorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”) applies. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 ; Lindh, v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320 , 117 S.Ct. 2059 , 138 L.Ed.2d 481 (1997). Under AEDPA, federal courts may grant a writ of habeas corpus only if the state court ruling “resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States,” or “was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d). The California Supreme Court denied review of Rogers’ ha-beas petition without comment. This court must therefore “look through” the unexplained California Supreme Court decision…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.