Harris
Harris v. Hamlet
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Appellant Dwayne Harris, a California state prisoner, appeals the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 and review de novo a district court’s decision to grant or deny a § 2254 habeas petition, while reviewing its factual findings for clear error. See Melendez v. Pliler, 288 F.3d 1120, 1124 (9th Cir.2002). The relevant facts are known to the parties and are discussed here only briefly.
Harris challenges his 1998 conviction for second-degree murder with a firearm enhancement, for which he was sentenced to a total term of 19 years. His petition, filed after April 24, 1996, is subject to the Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”). See Lockhart v. Terhune, 250 F.3d 1223, 1228 (9th Cir.2001). Under the AEDPA, we may grant Harris’ petition only if the state court’s decision was “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1). We conclude that Harris’ due process claim does not meet this standard. Therefore, we affirm.