Carl William Cresong v. Dale E. Copeland Grant Woods, Attorney General

70 F.3d 119 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Carl William CRESONG, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Dale E. COPELAND; Grant Woods, Attorney General, Respondents-Appellees. No. 95-16111. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Nov. 6, 1995. * Decided Nov. 9, 1995. Before: GOODWIN, PREGERSON, and REINHARDT, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Carl William Cresong, an Arizona state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254 petition. Cresong was convicted of armed robbery and sentenced to seventeen years imprisonment. He contends the district court erred when it denied his claim that the state trial court violated his Sixth Amendment confrontation rights. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2253 . We accept the district court's factual findings unless clearly erroneous and review its conclusions of law de novo. Hendricks v. Zenon, 993 F.2d 664, 668 (9th Cir.1993). We affirm. 3 Cresong contends the state…