22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T44a,MEMORANDUM Nevada state prisoner Vitaly Zakouto appeals from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we affirm. Zakouto contends that the trial court violated his confrontation rights by admitting into evidence the deceased victim’s videotaped testimony from a prior family court proceeding. It is undisputed that the victim was unavailable to testify at trial and that Zakouto had an opportunity to cross-examine her at the earlier proceeding. Therefore, the state court’s decision rejecting Zakouto’s confrontation clause claim was neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d); see also Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 59 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004); United States v. Owens, 484 U.S. 554, 559 , 108 S.Ct. 838 , 98 L.Ed.2d 951 (1988). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T477,

MEMORANDUM

Nevada state prisoner Vitaly Zakouto appeals from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we affirm.

Zakouto contends that the trial court violated his confrontation rights by admitting into evidence the deceased victim’s videotaped testimony from a prior family court proceeding. It is undisputed that the victim was unavailable to testify at trial and that Zakouto had an opportunity to cross-examine her at the earlier proceeding. Therefore, the state court’s decision rejecting Zakouto’s confrontation clause claim was neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d); see also Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 59 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004); United States v. Owens, 484 U.S. 554, 559 , 108 S.Ct. 838 , 98 L.Ed.2d 951 (1988).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.