Thorne

MEMORANDUM **

David Thorne, 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. Having reviewed the district court’s decision de novo, we affirm. See Alvarado v. Hill, 252 F.3d 1066, 1068 (9th Cir.2001) (holding that a district court’s denial of a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition is reviewed de novo). Because the parties are familiar with the factual and procedural history of this case, we will not recount it here.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d), as a prerequisite to obtaining habeas relief on any claim that was denied on the merits in a State proceeding, a petitioner must show one of the following: (1) the State court failed to apply clearly established federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court, in ruling on the claim, (2) despite being faced with a “materially indistinguishable” set of facts, the State court, while applying clearly established federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court, reached a result different from that arrived at in a controlling federal case, (3) the State court’s decision was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of…