Walker

facts, we do not recount them here. We affirm.

The California Court of Appeal’s (“CCA”) denial of Walker’s Faretta

request was neither “contrary to, [n]or involved an unreasonable application of,

clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United

States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). The Supreme Court in Faretta v. California, 422

U.S. 806, 835 (1975), clearly established that a self-representation request made

“weeks before trial” is timely. See Burton v. Davis, 816 F.3d 1132, 1141 (9th Cir.

2016) (quoting Faretta, 422 U.S. at 835–36); Marshall v. Taylor, 395 F.3d 1058,

1061 (9th Cir. 2005). But the CCA’s determination that Walker’s Faretta

request—made fifteen days before trial—was untimely does not meet the

requirements of § 2254(d)(1).

A state court decision is “contrary to” clearly established law if the state

court applies a rule that contradicts controlling Supreme Court authority or “if the

state court confronts a set of facts that are materially indistinguishable from a

decision” of the Supreme Court but nevertheless arrives at a different result.

Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 406 (2000). The CCA did not apply a…