Dimas v. Quarterman

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
October 26, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-41094
Summary Calendar
CHON PATRICK DIMAS,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
NATHANIEL QUARTERMAN, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL
JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION,
Respondent-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 9:02-CV-206
--------------------
Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Chon Patrick Dimas, Texas prisoner # 851077, appeals the
district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for
habeas relief. Dimas claims that his federal rights were violated
1) because the state trial court admitted evidence of his
commission of an extraneous burglary and 2) because the evidence at
trial was insufficient to support the jury’s verdict that he was
guilty of murder.

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 05-41094
-2-
We have reviewed the record and the briefs submitted by the
parties and hold that Dimas failed to meet his burden of
establishing that the state court’s adjudication of his claims
resulted in a decision that was contrary to federal law, or was
based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the
evidence presented in the state court proceedings. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254(d); Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 402-13 (2000); Jackson
v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979); Story v. Collins, 920 F.2d
1247, 1254 (5th Cir. 1991); Aguilar v. Dretke, 428 F.3d 526, 534
(5th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --