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:T464,MEMORANDUM California state prisoner Marco Santiago Zabala appeals from the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we affirm. Zabala contends that the state court’s conclusion — that the erroneous admission of evidence at trial was harmless — was contrary to, and an unreasonable application of, clearly established Supreme Court law. However, Zabala has failed to demonstrate that the state court’s application of Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967), was objectively unreasonable. See Mitchell v. Esparza, 540 U.S. 12, 18 , 124 S.Ct. 7 , 157 L.Ed.2d 263 (2003) (per curiam). Further, in light of the other evidence of guilt admitted at trial, Zabala has failed to establish that the trial error had a substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict. See Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 637 , 113 S.Ct. 1710 , 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T491,

MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Marco Santiago Zabala appeals from the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we affirm.

Zabala contends that the state court’s conclusion — that the erroneous admission of evidence at trial was harmless — was contrary to, and an unreasonable application of, clearly established Supreme Court law. However, Zabala has failed to demonstrate that the state court’s application of Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967), was objectively unreasonable. See Mitchell v. Esparza, 540 U.S. 12, 18 , 124 S.Ct. 7 , 157 L.Ed.2d 263 (2003) (per curiam). Further, in light of the other evidence of guilt admitted at trial, Zabala has failed to establish that the trial error had a substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict. See Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 637 , 113 S.Ct. 1710 , 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993).

AFFIRMED.

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