Ramirez

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Walfrido Ramirez appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (a), and we affirm.

Because the AEDPA applies, see 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d), Ramirez must demonstrate that the state court adjudication of the merits of his claim “resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d); Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 412 , 120 S.Ct. 1495 , 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000) (O’Connor, J., concurrence); Van Tran v. Lindsey, 212 F.3d 1143,1153-54 (9th Cir.2000), cert, denied, 531 U.S. 944 , 121 S.Ct. 340 , 148 L.Ed.2d 274 (2000) (defining “unreasonable application” as involving situations where the state court has committed clear error).

Ramirez contends that his Sixth Amendment right to counsel was violated when the California trial court denied his motion to act as his own counsel at trial. This contention lacks merit. The United States Supreme Court held in Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 , 95 S.Ct. 2525 , 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975), that…