Mendoza

MEMORANDUM **

Arizona state prisoner James Castillo Mendoza appeals pro se the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition challenging a burglary conviction. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253. We review the district court’s denial of Mendoza’s habeas petition de novo, see Turner v. Calderon, 281 F.3d 851, 864 (9th Cir.2002), and we affirm.

Mendoza contends that he was prejudiced by the admission of evidence that the victims had been threatened prior to testifying. A habeas petition may not be granted unless the alleged constitutional error “‘had a substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict.’” Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 623 , 113 S.Ct. 1710 , 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993) (citation omitted). We conclude that although the admission of evidence of threats was improper, it did not have a substantial and injurious effect on the verdict, in light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt including that Mendoza was confronted and restrained by the victims exiting their home and their property was found in his car. See Bains v. Cambra, 204 F.3d 964, 973-74, 977-78 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1037 ,…