ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND DENYING PETITIONER'S REQUEST FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING

CORMAC J. CARNEY, District Judge.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition, all the records and files herein, and the Report and Recommendation of the U.S. Magistrate Judge.

Petitioner has filed objections to the Report and Recommendation, in which he requests an evidentiary hearing on his insufficiency-of-the-evidence claims. Having made a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections have been made, the Court accepts the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge and denies Petitioner's request for an evidentiary hearing. In his objections Petitioner simply reargues the evidence, but this Court cannot find that the state courts' affirmance of the verdicts was objectively unreasonable just because another plausible interpretation of some of the evidence might exist. Moreover, as to most of the factual inferences Petitioner disputes, the Magistrate Judge did not rely on those portions of the record in her analysis but rather simply quoted the state court of appeal's findings. Finally, no evidentiary hearing is warranted. Under Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. ___, 131 S.Ct. 1388, 1398-1401, 179 L. Ed. 2d 557 (2011), federal courts may not consider new evidence concerning habeas claims subject to review under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) (1), as are sufficiency-of-the-evidence claims. See Stokley v. Ryan, 659 F.3d 802, 809 (9th Cir. 2011); Juan H. v. Allen, 408 F.3d 1262, 1274-75 (9th Cir. 2005).

IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that (1) Petitioner's request for an evidentiary hearing is denied and (2) Judgment be entered denying the Petition and dismissing this with prejudice.