Taniko C. Smith v. BRIAN E. WILLIAMS, Sr.; ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF NEVADA

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TANIKO C. SMITH,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
BRIAN E. WILLIAMS, Sr.; ATTORNEY
GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF
NEVADA,
Respondents-Appellees.
No. 19-17514
D.C. No.
2:12-cv-00952-APG-VCF
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Andrew P. Gordon, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 31, 2021**
San Francisco, California
Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Nevada state prisoner Taniko C. Smith appeals from the district court’s
judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. We have
FILED
APR 1 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 3 --

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § § 1291 and 2253. We review the district court’s
decision de novo, see Smith v. Ryan, 823 F.3d 1270, 1278 (9th Cir. 2016), and we
affirm.
Smith contends that the aiding and abetting instruction given at his trial
violated due process because it eliminated the specific intent element required to
prove murder and attempted murder. Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death
Penalty Act (AEDPA), we give considerable deference to state court decisions.
Habeas relief may only be granted if the adjudication “resulted in a decision that
was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established
federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States” or “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.”1 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); see
also Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 100 (2011). Neither is present in this
case. The challenged instruction amply informed the jury of the requisite mental
state and did not have “the effect of relieving the State of the burden of proof” on
this critical question. See Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U.S. 510, 521 (1979); see
also Waddington v. Sarausad, 555 U.S. 179, 190-92 (2009).
1 Even if we were to agree with Smith that de novo review applied, his claim
would still fail.
2

-- 2 of 3 --

AFFIRMED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --