Wright

MEMORANDUM *

Petitioner Matthew Byron Wright appeals the district court’s denial of his § 2254 petition. On de novo review, we affirm.

A. Confrontation Clause ■

Petitioner first argues that the limitations on his cross-examination of B.J. Reynolds rise to the level of an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. 1 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1). We are not persuaded.

A trial judge may limit the scope of cross-examination without necessarily committing constitutional error. Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 679 , 106 S.Ct. 1431 , 89 L.Ed.2d 674 (1986). Petitioner had ample opportunity to cross-examine Reynolds as to coercion, favorable treatment, bias, and motive to lie. This fact distinguishes Petitioner’s case from those on which he principally relies, Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308 , 94 S.Ct. 1105 , 39 L.Ed.2d 347 (1974), and Van Arsdall .

Specifically, Petitioner’s cross-examination disclosed that Reynolds did not want to testify, that the police had coerced him to do so, that he gave his statement because he was concerned that the police *851 otherwise would blame him for the murder, and that he received benefits such as immunity from prosecution for…