Penn

MEMORANDUM **

We affirm the district court’s dismissal of Appellant Marlin Penn’s habeas corpus petition. Penn contends that his due process rights were violated when a California trial court ruled that he could be impeached with details of his prior convictions if he took the stand to testify in his own defense.

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 . Our review of the district court’s decision is de novo. Benn v. Lambert, 283 F.3d 1040, 1051 (9th Cir.2002). Our resolution turns on whether the refusal of the California courts to set aside Penn’s conviction “resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court” or “was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d); see also Early v. Packer, — U.S.-, 123 S.Ct. 362 , 154 L.Ed.2d 263 (2002).

Penn’s first argument, that the state trial court’s impeachment ruling violated the terms of the stipulation, is defeated by the ample evidence suggesting the impeachment question was beyond the scope of the parties’ agreement. The impeachment ruling was based on a…