Denney

MEMORANDUM ***

Clyde Denney, prisoner of the State of California, appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253, and we affirm. Because the parties are familiar with the factual and procedural history of this case, we will not recount it here.

A district court’s decision to deny a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition is reviewed de novo. See Alvarado v. Hill, 252 F.3d 1066, 1068 (9th Cir.2001). Because Den-ney’s Sixth Amendment claim was denied on the merits in a State proceeding, we may grant relief on this claim only if the State court’s decision (1) was contrary to clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court; (2) involved an unreasonable application of clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court; or (3) was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d). We consider each of these standards in turn.

I. Contrary to Clearly Established Federal Law

A state court’s decision is contrary to clearly established federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court,…