Christopher N. GLASGOW, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Clark E. DUCART, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
Decided: December 16, 2019
Before: WALLACE, CANBY, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Christopher N. Glasgow, Pro Se Kathy S. Pomerantz, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA, for Respondent-Appellee
California state prisoner Christopher N. Glasgow appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. Reviewing de novo, see Smith v. Ryan, 823 F.3d 1270, 1278 (9th Cir. 2016), we affirm.
Glasgow contends that there was insufficient evidence to support one of his convictions for transportation and sale of cocaine base. Viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the evidence underlying this count could enable a rational trier of fact to find the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. See Jones v. Wood, 207 F.3d 557, 563 (9th Cir. 2000). The state court’s rejection of this claim, therefore, was neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1).
The motion to expand the certificate of appealability is denied. See Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir. 1999).
Was this helpful?
Response sent, thank you
Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.