Whether the Ninth Circuit's reliance on nonexistent testimony so departed from the accepted course of judicial proceedings as to justify summary reversal

QUESTION PRESENTED In this federal habeas case, petitioner Oscar Salais challenges his California convictions on three counts of attempted murder, all premised on one gunshot—fired in some unknown direction, hitting no one—as unsupported by constitutionally sufficient evidence. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979). The Ninth Circuit held that the state court’s rejection of Salais’s claim was reasonable given testimony that he fired “at” the three fleeing witnesses. But there was no testimony that he fired “at” anyone. Did the Ninth Circuit’s reliance on nonexistent testimony so depart from the accepted course of judicial proceedings as to justify summary reversal? U.S. Sup. Ct. R. 10(a).