Cunningham

MEMORANDUM **

Petitioner-Appellant Leo Cunningham appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his habeas petition. We affirm. Because the parties are familiar with the factual and procedural history, we will not recount it here.

I

We review a district court’s decision denying habeas relief de novo. Bribiesca v. Galaza, 215 F.3d 1015,1018 (9th Cir.2000). Because Cunningham filed his federal habeas petition in 1999, it is governed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) of 1996, Pub.L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214. Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 327 , 117 S.Ct. 2059 , 138 L.Ed.2d 481 (1997). Under AEDPA, a federal court can reverse a state court’s decision only if the state court decision: “(1) ... was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d).

II

A federal court “cannot disturb on due process grounds a state court’s decision to admit prior bad acts evidence unless the…