Check how courts have cited this case. Use our free citator for the most current treatment.
No. 8642874
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Langster v. Runnels
No. 8642874 · Decided June 28, 2007
No. 8642874·Ninth Circuit · 2007·
FlawFinder last updated this page Apr. 2, 2026
Case Details
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided
June 28, 2007
Citation
No. 8642874
Disposition
See opinion text.
Full Opinion
MEMORANDUM * John A. Langster appeals from the district court’s denial of his habeas corpus petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . We affirm. (1) Given the standards that we must follow, 1 we cannot hold that the California courts improperly rejected Langster’s claims that the evidence was insufficient to permit a rational juror to find him guilty 2 of felony false imprisonment by the use of menace as that crime is defined in California. 3 (2) Nor can we say that Langster’s sentencing under California’s Three Strikes Law 4 violated the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Given the confluence of Langster’s extensive and serious criminal history and the seriousness of the offense in question here, we cannot say that this is one of those exceedingly rare instances where the sentence has run afoul of Eighth Amendment law as clearly established by the United States Supreme Court. See Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 72-77 , 123 S.Ct. 1166, 1173-75 , 155 L.Ed.2d 144 (2003); Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11, 28-31 , 123 S.Ct. 1179, 1189-90 , 155 L.Ed.2d 108 (2003); Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U.S. 263, 272 , 100 S.Ct. 1133, 1138 , 63 L.Ed.2d 382 (1980); Nunes v. Ramirez-Palmer, 485 F.3d 432, 438-40 (9th Cir.2007). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. . 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d); Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510, 520 , 123 S.Ct. 2527, 2534-35 , 156 L.Ed.2d 471 (2003). . See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 , 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2789 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). . See Cal.Penal Code §§ 236-237; People v. Raley, 2 Cal.4th 870, 907-08 , 830 P.2d 712, 736 , 8 Cal.Rptr.2d 678, 702 , (1992); People v. Reed, 78 Cal.App.4th 274, 280-81 , 92 Cal.Rptr.2d 781, 785-86 (2000); People v. Bamba, 58 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1118, 1123-24 , 68 Cal.Rptr.2d 450, 452-53, 456 (1997); People v. Babich, 14 Cal.App. 4th 801, 804, 806-07 , 18 Cal.Rptr.2d 60, 63 (1993); see also People v. Castro, 138 Cal.App.4th 137, 143-44 , 41 Cal.Rptr.3d 190, 194-95 (2006). . Cal.Penal Code § 667(b)-(i).
Plain English Summary
Langster appeals from the district court’s denial of his habeas corpus petition.
Key Points
01Langster appeals from the district court’s denial of his habeas corpus petition.
02(1) Given the standards that we must follow, 1 we cannot hold that the California courts improperly rejected Langster’s claims that the evidence was insufficient to permit a rational juror to find him guilty 2 of felony false imprisonment b
033 (2) Nor can we say that Langster’s sentencing under California’s Three Strikes Law 4 violated the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
04Given the confluence of Langster’s extensive and serious criminal history and the seriousness of the offense in question here, we cannot say that this is one of those exceedingly rare instances where the sentence has run afoul of Eighth Ame
Frequently Asked Questions
Langster appeals from the district court’s denial of his habeas corpus petition.
FlawCheck shows no negative treatment for Langster v. Runnels in the current circuit citation data.
This case was decided on June 28, 2007.
Use the citation No. 8642874 and verify it against the official reporter before filing.