Brown

MEMORANDUM *

State prisoner Mendes Stanley Brown (“Brown”) appeals the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1) habeas petition. 1 We review the district court’s grant or denial of habeas relief de novo. Evanchyk v. Stewart, 340 F.3d 933, 939 (9th Cir.2003). In doing so, however, we must observe the deferential standard for review of state court determinations under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”). Under the AEDPA, the state court’s determination is entitled to deference if it was not “contrary to, or ... 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).

A state court decision is contrary to clearly established federal law only “if the state court applies a rule that contradicts the governing law set forth in [Supreme Court] cases” or “if the state court confronts a set of facts that are materially indistinguishable from a decision of [the *258 Supreme] Court and nevertheless arrives at a result different from [Supreme Court] precedent.” Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63 , 123 S.Ct. 1166, 1173 , 155 L.Ed.2d 144 (2003) (internal quotation marks…