With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". retreat from the home of his good friend; and had a motive to murder, namely to pay back his debt to Pierce so Pierce would stop threatening him and his mother. Gipson also cites other AEDPA habeas cases addressing claims of insufficient evidence that he claims are factually analogous and therefore “provid[e] a ‘valuable reference point’ when considering the reasonableness of a state court’s application of Supreme Court precedent to a particular set of facts.” O’Laughlin v. O’Brien, 568 F.3d 287, 305 (1st Cir. 2009) (quoting Evans v. Thompson, 518 F.3d 1, 10 (1st Cir. 2008)); see also id. at 308 (stating that “federal courts, acting under the AEDPA regime, can hold in appropriate circumstances state court decisions to be objectively unreasonable when applying Jackson”); id. at 302-08 (<HOLDING>); Newman v. Metrish, 543 F.Sd 793, 794, 797

A: holding that insufficient evidence supported the defendants conviction for possession of cocaine when officers executed a warrant on a small oneroom apartment and found large quantities of crackcocaine in plain view although the defendant supplied police with a false name when they questioned him at the apartment there was no evidence that the defendant had drugs on his person or that he had ever used cocaine
B: holding that state court unreasonably applied jackson where circumstantial evidence was insufficient to support convictions for burglary and armed assault inside victims apartment because nothing of value was taken savage beating of victim was inconsistent with the defendants alleged motive of seeking money to buy crack cocaine baseball bat found near apartment and connected to the defendantalthough consistent with victims injureswas not otherwise linked to crime and evidence of the defendants consciousness of guilt namely his refusal to consent to police officers swab of blood stain in his apartment did not show guilt beyond a reasonable doubt
C: holding that police officers testimony as to the victims prior inconsistent statements made to him on day of the alleged crime were not admissible as substantive evidence and could not be used to support a finding of guilt
D: holding that the defendant had consented where he allowed the police officers into his apartment building and allowed the officers to follow him into his apartment without impediment or objection to the entry of the police
B.