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:T45d,MEMORANDUM California state prisoner Nathaniel Williams appeals from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition challenging the loss of good time credits following prison disciplinary proceedings for unlawful influence of staff. We have .jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we affirm. Williams contends that his due process rights were violated when he was denied the opportunity to call four staff witnesses at the prison disciplinary hearing. In light of the record, the witnesses’ proposed testimony was irrelevant and any exclusion was harmless.- Therefore, the California court’s determination that Williams was afforded his due process rights was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established Supreme Court law. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1); see also Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 637 , 113 S.Ct. 1710 , 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993); Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 566 , 94 S.Ct. 2963 , 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T48a,

MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Nathaniel Williams appeals from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition challenging the loss of good time credits following prison disciplinary proceedings for unlawful influence of staff. We have .jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we affirm.

Williams contends that his due process rights were violated when he was denied the opportunity to call four staff witnesses at the prison disciplinary hearing. In light of the record, the witnesses’ proposed testimony was irrelevant and any exclusion was harmless.- Therefore, the California court’s determination that Williams was afforded his due process rights was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established Supreme Court law. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1); see also Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 637 , 113 S.Ct. 1710 , 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993); Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 566 , 94 S.Ct. 2963 , 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974).

AFFIRMED.

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