Hawkins

MEMORANDUM **

Petitioner John B. Hawkins appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and § 2253(a), and we affirm.

We review de novo the district court’s decision to deny a habeas petition. Bribiesca v. Galaza, 215 F.3d 1015, 1018 (9th Cir.2000). Under the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), “we may reverse a state court’s decision denying relief only if that *658 decision is ‘contrary to, or involves an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.’ ” Van Tran v. Lindsey, 212 F.3d 1143, 1149 (9th Cir.) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1)), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 944 , 121 S.Ct. 340 , 148 L.Ed.2d 274 (2000). We have interpreted an “unreasonable application” to be a “firm conviction” that “clear error occurred.” Id. at 1153-54.

Hawkins contends that the state court violated his right under the Sixth Amendment to confront witnesses testifying against him by admitting into evidence out-of-court statements by co-conspirator Dr. Boggs that he alleges were not in furtherance of…