
    Dejay BAILEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. J.N. KATAVICH, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 10-55938.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 9, 2013.
    
    Filed Jan. 11, 2013.
    Tracy Dressner, Esquire, Attorney at Law, La Crescenta, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.
    Dejay Bailey, San Luis Obispo, CA, pro se.
    Michael Joseph Wise, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, Shira B. Seigle, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
    Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, McKEOWN and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Dejay Bailey, a California state prisoner, appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition challenging his jury conviction for second degree robbery. Reviewing de novo the district court’s decision, see Shumway v. Payne, 228 F.3d 982, 984 (9th Cir.2000), we affirm.

Bailey argues that the totality of the evidence was insufficient to show that he intended to permanently deprive the victim of her property. The district court properly determined that the California Court of Appeal’s decision on direct review was not “contrary to,” or “an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). The undisputed facts amply suffice to permit a jury to conclude that Bailey “dealt with [the license plate] in such a way as to create an unreasonable risk of permanent loss,” thereby demonstrating “an intent to steal.” People v. Zangari, 89 Cal.App.4th 1436, 1446, 108 Cal.Rptr.2d 250 (2001). Despite the arguably contrary evidence cited by Bailey, “the only question under Jackson is whether [a jury] finding was so insupportable as to fall below the threshold of bare rationality.” Coleman v. Johnson, - U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 2060, 2065, 182 L.Ed.2d 978 (2012) (per curiam). Here, “the evidence at [Bailey]’s trial was not nearly sparse enough to sustain a due process challenge under Jackson.” Id.

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