Fairchild

MEMORANDUM

Roger Kim Fairchild, an Idaho state prisoner, appeals the district court’s denial of his habeas corpus petitioner. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (a). We affirm.

We review de novo the district court’s denial of a petition for habeas corpus. Lewis v. Mayle, 391 F.3d 989, 995 (9th Cir.2004). Because Fairchild filed his federal habeas petition in 1999, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”) governs Fairchild’s claims. 28 U.S.C. 2254(d)(1); see also Penny v. Johnson, 532 U.S. 782, 792 , 121 S.Ct. 1910 , 150 L.Ed.2d 9 (2001).

Under AEDPA, a federal court may not grant a state prisoner’s habeas petition with respect to any claim adjudicated on the merits unless the relevant state-court decision (1) “was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States” or (2) “was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d). In order to establish that a state court decision is “contrary to ... clearly established Federal Law, as determined by the Supreme…