MEMORANDUM **

Aaron Cooper (“Cooper”) appeals the denial of his habeas corpus petition attacking his conviction for the murder of William Highsmith (“Highsmith”). We affirm.

We review Cooper’s insufficient evidence claim under the doubly deferential standard of Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979), and the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”), which requires deference to both the jury’s verdict and the California Court of Appeal’s conclusion that there was sufficient evidence to support the verdict. See Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 75, 123 S.Ct. 1166, 155 L.Ed.2d 144 (2003) (habeas relief appropriate only where the state court’s application of clearly established law is “objectively unreasonable”) (citing Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 406, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000)).

Sufficient circumstantial evidence supports Cooper’s conviction. Most critically, the government offered evidence of motive; extensive eyewitness testimony that Cooper participated in the abduction of Highsmith at gunpoint, during which shots were fired; the opinion of a forensic pathologist that Highsmith died shortly after his abduction from a gunshot wound to the head; and forensic testimony that clothing associated with Cooper tested positive for gunshot residue. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution as required by Jackson, and with deference to the state court decision as required by AEDPA, it was not objectively unreasonable for the California Court of Appeal to conclude that the evidence was sufficient to support Cooper’s conviction.

AFFIRMED.