Jovel

MEMORANDUM **

Appellant Rene Jovel appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2258 , and we affirm.

We review de novo a district court’s denial of a habeas petition. Himes v. Thompson, 336 F.3d 848, 852 (9th Cir.2003). Jovel’s claim that there was insufficient evidence to convict him of assault with a semiautomatic firearm is reviewed under the deferential standard of the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d). See Juan H. v. Allen, 408 F.3d 1262 , 1275 n. 13 (9th Cir.2005). Thus, the question for our decision is whether the California Court of Appeal, in holding that the evidence was sufficient, unreasonably applied the standard established by the Supreme Court in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979): whether “any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id.; see 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1).

The state court did not unreasonably apply the Jackson standard in concluding that any rational jury could have found the elements of…