McDonald

MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Camitt Doughton appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 . We review a district court’s denial of a habeas corpus petition de novo, see Stanley v. Cullen, 633 F.3d 852, 859 (9th Cir.2011), and we affirm.

Doughton contends that the trial court’s exclusion of impeachment evidence against a prosecution witnesses violated his Sixth Amendment confrontation rights. The Supreme Court “has never held that the Confrontation Clause entitles a criminal defendant to introduce extrinsic evidence for impeachment purposes.” Nevada v. Jackson,. — U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 1990, 1994 , 186 L.Ed.2d 62 (2013) (per curiam). Accordingly, the California Court of Appeal’s rejection of this claim was neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1); Brewer v. Hall, 378 F.3d 952, 955 (9th Cir.2004) (“If no Supreme Court precedent creates clearly established federal law relating to the legal issue the habeas petitioner raised in state court, the state court’s decision cannot be contrary to or an…