Hunter

MEMORANDUM **

Arizona state prisoner James Ray Hunter appeals pro se the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition, which challenges his convictions for felony murder and robbery. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (a). Reviewing de novo, Alvarado v. Hill, 252 F.3d 1066, 1068 (9th Cir.2001), we affirm.

Hunter contends that the erroneous admission of hearsay testimony regarding the partial license plate number of the car used in the robbery violated his rights under the Confrontation Clause. The district court properly denied habeas relief, however, because any error was harmless due to the substantial other evidence identifying Hunter’s car as the one at the scene, as well as the other evidence of Hunter’s guilt. See Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 637 , 113 S.Ct. 1710 , 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993) (holding that in a habeas case, an error is harmless unless it had a “substantial and injurious effect” on the verdict).

Hunter also contends that his appellate counsel was constitutionally ineffective because he failed to argue the hearsay claim persuasively and failed to raise various other issues. However, appellate counsel’s brief adequately…