Peace

MEMORANDUM **

Joseph Peace appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition challenging his California conviction for two counts of assault with a deadly weapon arising from an incident of road rage. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 and review the district court’s denial of the habeas petition de novo. Fernandez v. Roe, 286 F.3d 1073, *108 1076 (9th Cir.2002), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 123 S.Ct. 514 , 154 L.Ed.2d 395 (2002). We can grant relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 only if we find that the state court decision “was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . We affirm because the state court’s decision was not an unreasonable application of clearly established law.

Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we will not recite them in this decision.

Peace argues that the prosecutor’s cross-examination of a defense witness regarding post-arrest silence of the witness violated the Fifth Amendment. The state responds that no clearly established law in 1999 extended Fifth Amendment protection to non-defendant witnesses and…