Joseph Cornett v. Domingo Uribe, Jr.
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Joseph Cornett appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habe-as petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , we review de novo, see Insyxiengmay v. Morgan, 403 F.3d 657, 665 (9th Cir.2005), and we affirm.
1. The California Court of Appeal reasonably applied clearly established federal law when it held the trial court’s failure to give a requested no-adverse-inference instruction, in violation of Cornétt’s constitutional rights under Carter v. Kentucky, 450 U.S. 288 , 101 S.Ct. 1112 , 67 L.Ed.2d 241 (1981), was nonstructural error. The court of appeal’s conclusion was consistent with the decisions of this and other courts, see United States v. Soto, 519 F.3d 927, 930 (9th Cir.2008); Lewis v. Pinchak, 348 F.3d 355, 358 (3d Cir.2003); United States v. Burgess, 175 F.3d 1261, 1266-67 (11th Cir.1999); United States v. Brand, 80 F.3d 560, 568 (1st Cir.1996); Finney v. Rothgerber, 751 F.2d 858, 864 (6th Cir.1985); Richardson v. Lucas, 741 F.2d 753, 754-55 (5th Cir.1984), and was reasonable in light of Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967), in which the Supreme Court held Griffin error is nonstructural.