Taylor

MEMORANDUM *

We affirm the district court’s dismissal of Paris L. Taylor’s habeas petition. The Supreme Court’s decisions in Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 , 88 S.Ct. 1620 , 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968) and Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200 , 107 S.Ct. 1702 , 95 L.Ed.2d 176 (1987) constitute the relevant clearly established federal law. Under these cases, the admission of a non-testifying codefendant’s confession at a joint trial violates the Confrontation Clause if the confession facially incriminates the defendant. Bruton, 391 U.S. at 126 ; see also United States v. Angwin, 271 F.3d 786, 796 (9th Cir.2001), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 966 , 122 S.Ct. 1385 , 152 L.Ed.2d 375 (2002) (“Under Bruton and its progeny, the admission of a statement made by a non-testifying codefendant violates the Confrontation Clause when that statement facially, expressly, clearly, or powerfully implicates the defendant”) (citations omitted).

A eodefendant’s confession is not facially incriminating, and thus does not raise Confrontation Clause concerns, if the confession is “redacted to omit any reference to the defendant ... [even if] the defendant is nonetheless linked to the confession by evidence…