Garcia

MEMORANDUM **

Richard Garcia appeals pro se the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition challenging his jury-trial conviction for discharging a weapon in a grossly negligent manner in violation of California Penal Code § 246.3. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . We review de novo, see Miles v. Prunty, 187 F.3d 1104, 1105 (9th Cir.1999), and affirm.

Garcia first contends that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial because his trial was held beyond the 60-day time period provided under Cal.Penal Code § 1382. We reject this contention because errors of state law are not cognizable in a federal habeas peti *679 tion. See Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68 , 112 S.Ct. 475 , 116 L.Ed.2d 385 (1991) (reemphasizing that federal habeas courts may not reexamine state-court determinations on state-law questions).

Independent of state law, we evaluate Garcia’s contention based on his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial pursuant to the factors in Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 , 92 S.Ct. 2182 , 33 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972): 1) the length of delay; 2) the reason for the delay; 3) the defendant’s assertion of his right; and 4) prejudice…