130 S.Ct. 1855; see also Parker v. Matthews, — U.S. —, 132 S.Ct. 2148, 2155, 183 L.Ed.2d 32 (2012). And despite some factual similarities, it is distinguishable. Unlike Kamienski, there was solid evidence placing Gipson at or near the scene of the crime based on his cell phone records. Although presence alone cannot establish intent, it is one of the key elements for proving participation in criminal intent. See Johnson, 754 N.E.2d at 801. Furthermore, there was inferential proof of complicity based on cell phone records that Gipson was actively communicating with Harper on the day of the drug deal; drove the robber-shooter to the victim’s home to carry out the crimes; was at or near Harper’s residence when the murder occurred; acted as the getaway driver, beating a ha Cir. 2008) (<HOLDING>); Juan H. v. Allen, 408 F.3d 1262, 1277-79 (9th
holding that police had probable cause to arrest defendant who was seen in the company of drug suspects was seen meeting suspects while they engaged in a drug conspiracy and whose behavior was consistent with the inference he was part of the conspiracy holding that because the petitioner failed in the petition to set forth facts known to petitioner or state that petitioner has no knowledge of facts regarding the name and address of any judicially appointed guardian or person or agency awarded custody of the child by a court and failed to attach the existing custody order to the petition it was facially defective and did not confer subject matter jurisdiction upon the trial court holding that the state court ruling was objectively unreasonable where prosecution failed to present sufficient evidence that the petitioner murdered a known drug dealer although the state established that the petitioner planned to rob drug dealers for drugs or money the victim was a known drug dealer who kept drugs in his freezer and that freezer was open and empty after the homicide the petitioner and the victim had engaged in drug transactions in the past the petitioner had a motive because he had seen the victim make a pass at the petitioners girlfriend and the petitioner had possessed and once purchased the murder weapon and a similar gun was seen in his home two weeks before the murder evidence placing the petitioner at the scene was conspicuously absent leaving only a reasonable speculation that the petitioner was present holding that the state courts determination that petitioner was not in custody was not unreasonable under aedpa where the petitioner voluntarily went to the police station was interviewed by three police officers and one polygraph examiner was deceitfully told that another man had implicated him in a murder and was questioned for four hours before being advised of his miranda rights holding that rule 27 is not appropriate where the petitioner seeks discovery of unknown information that the petitioner hopes will assist it in the future when the petitioner applies for judicial relief