McCurdy

MEMORANDUM **

In 1990, McCurdy was convicted of murder of the second degree with use of a deadly weapon in a Nevada state court. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed his conviction. McCurdy subsequently filed a habeas corpus petition in federal district court challenging the sufficiency of the evidence. The district court denied McCurdy’s habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we affirm the district court’s denial of the writ of habeas corpus.

Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, a petitioner must demonstrate that the state court’s adjudication of the merits resulted in a decision that “(1) was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or (2) resulted in a decision that 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).

“It is not the province of a federal habeas court to reexamine state-court determi *667 nations on state-law questions.” Juan H. v. Allen, 408 F.3d 1262 , 1278 n. 14 (9th Cir.2005). We look to Nevada law “only to…

dissenting:

I do not believe that there is any federal jurisdiction over the purported writ of habeas corpus since no violation of the federal constitution or federal law is alleged. Although insufficiency of the evidence implicates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (see In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 364 , 90 S.Ct. 1068 , 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970)), the crux of the petitioner’s argument concerns a question of state law—whether a defendant can be found guilty of aiding and abetting a lesser related offense of the principal—which is not appropriate for federal review. Therefore, the petition must be dismissed.