Garcia

MEMORANDUM **

Ramiro Garcia appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition, wherein Garcia challenged his conviction for second degree murder on the ground that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his conviction for the gang murder of bystander Stanley Drury under either an aiding and abetting theory or a natural and probable consequence theory. We review a district court’s decision to deny or grant a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition de novo. See Alcala v. Woodford, 334 F.3d 862, 868 (9th Cir.2003). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 and affirm.

Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, a petitioner must demonstrate that the state court’s adjudication of the merits 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 resulted in a decision that was based on an unreason *615 able determination of the facts. See Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 71 , 123 S.Ct. 1166 , 155 L.Ed.2d 144 (2003). When the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a verdict is challenged, “[t]he…