Mur

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Deandre Mur appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition challenging his conviction for assault with a semiautomatic firearm. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 . We review de novo the district court’s denial of a habeas petition, Mendez v. Small, 298 F.3d 1154, 1157-58 (9th Cir.2002), and we affirm.

Mur first contends that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction of assault with a semiautomatic firearm. We are not persuaded. After reviewing the record, we conclude that a “rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979).

Next, Mur contends that the trial court’s failure to instruct the jury sua sponte on the definition of “semiautomatic firearm” violated his right to a fair trial. We disagree. Given that (1) the weapons were in the courtroom for the jury’s inspection, (2) witnesses referred to the weapons as semiautomatics without objection by either co-defendant, and (3) the jurors did not seek any clarification of the term, the…