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:T4d0,MEMORANDUM California state prisoner Carnell U. Pratt appeals from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we affirm. Pratt contends that his due process rights were violated when the trial court admitted testimony about Pratt’s tattoo without instructing the jury that it could not consider the testimony as propensity evidence. However, the state courts’ rejection of this claim was not objectively unreasonable. See Himes v. Thompson, 336 F.3d 848, 852-53 (9th Cir.2003) (describing standard of review); see also Alberni v. McDaniel, 458 F.3d 860, 866-67 (9th Cir.2006) (holding that a due process right against admission of propensity evidence “has not been clearly established by the Supreme Court, as required by AEDPA”). Furthermore, our review of the record indicates that the district court correctly determined that any error in omitting a limiting instruction was harmless under the standard announced in Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 623 , 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:T4fd,

MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Carnell U. Pratt appeals from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we affirm.

Pratt contends that his due process rights were violated when the trial court admitted testimony about Pratt’s tattoo without instructing the jury that it could not consider the testimony as propensity evidence. However, the state courts’ rejection of this claim was not objectively unreasonable. See Himes v. Thompson, 336 F.3d 848, 852-53 (9th Cir.2003) (describing standard of review); see also Alberni v. McDaniel, 458 F.3d 860, 866-67 (9th Cir.2006) (holding that a due process right against admission of propensity evidence “has not been clearly established by the Supreme Court, as required by AEDPA”). Furthermore, our review of the record indicates that the district court correctly determined that any error in omitting a limiting instruction was harmless under the standard announced in Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 623 , 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.