
    Demarkas S. KING, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Anthony HEDGPETH, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 10-17846.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted April 20, 2012.
    Filed April 30, 2012.
    Gene Vorobyov, Law Office of Gene Vorobyov, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.
    Demarkas S. King, Soledad, CA, pro se.
    Daniel Brad Bernstein, Esquire, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
    Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
   MEMORANDUM

Petitioner Demarkas S. King was convicted in California state court after a jury trial for murder and attempted murder. He appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition in which he challenged the integrity of the jury verdict. We affirm.

The state trial court held a full evidentiary hearing on Juror No. 4’s multiple claims of juror misconduct, including her own belatedly perceived bias. The court found that she was not credible and that no juror misconduct had occurred. The state court described the juror’s efforts to undo the verdict as “buyer’s remorse.”

The parties dispute whether the state court’s adjudication should be reviewed under the standard set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2) or (e)(1). Regardless of which provision applies, however, the decision of the state trial court remains a credibility determination that is entitled to substantial deference. See Maxwell v. Roe, 628 F.3d 486, 503 (9th Cir.2010), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 132 S.Ct. 611, 181 L.Ed.2d 785 (2012). That ruling was neither unreasonable nor clearly erroneous, because the record contained ample support for the court’s determination. Juror No. 4’s version of what happened was substantially contradicted by the testimony of virtually all of the other jurors and, at most, only partially corroborated by the alternate juror and Juror No. 2.

There was no violation of King’s federal rights, and the petition was properly denied.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     