Garcia

MEMORANDUM *

Petitioner Duane Johnson appeals the district court’s decision denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we affirm.

We review the district court’s decision denying a habeas petition de novo. Killian v. Poole, 282 F.3d 1204, 1207 (9th Cir.2002), ce rt. denied, 537 U.S. 1179 , 123 S.Ct. *600 992 , 154 L.Ed.2d 927 (2003). Because Johnson’s petition was filed after the effective date of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”), Pub.L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214 (1996), habeas relief cannot be granted in this case unless the state court’s adjudication of a federal claim “resulted in a decision that 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) (2000).

The decision of the California Court of Appeal that any error in admitting Johnson’s statement was harmless was neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law. Although that court did not clearly articulate the Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d…