Edward M.F. Hannah v. Edward R. Meyers

60 F.3d 833 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Edward M.F. HANNAH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Edward R. MEYERS, Respondent-Appellee. No. 95-15258. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted July 6, 1995. * Decided July 7, 1995. Before: FLETCHER, KOZINSKI, and THOMPSON, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Edward M.F. Hannah, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254 habeas petition. Following a jury trial, Hannah was convicted of forcible rape and two counts of assault with a deadly weapon. Hannah contends that the trial court violated his right to confrontation by limiting the scope of his cross-examination of the complaining witness. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2253 . We review de novo, Sanders v. Ratelle, 21 F.3d 1446, 1451 (9th Cir.1994), and affirm. 3 "The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment guarantees the right of an accused in a criminal prosecution to be confronted…