Diep

MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Victor Diep appeals from a partial denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition and asserts that the district court erred in failing to grant an evidentiary hearing. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 and review the denial of a habeas petition de novo. Koerner v. Grigas, 328 F.3d 1039, 1045-46 (9th Cir.2003). A district court’s denial of an evidentiary hearing on a habeas petition is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Tilcock v. Budge, 538 F.3d 1138, 1143 (9th Cir.2008). This case is governed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”) which bars federal habeas relief unless the state court adjudication was “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States” or was “based on an unreasonable determination of the facts.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d). We affirm.

Diep argues that his Sixth Amendment rights were violated when state trial court jurors discussed Asians and speculated that Diep was a gang member. The state court’s treatment of these discussions was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly…