Holloway

MEMORANDUM **

Pete Holloway appeals pro se the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition challenging his conviction, after two jury trials, for first degree murder and other related offenses. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we affirm.

Holloway contends the district court erred in dismissing his § 2254 petition because the trial court violated his Sixth Amendment right to confront and cross-examine witnesses by excluding evidence that allegedly would have impeached three of the prosecution witnesses. We disagree. Trial judges have wide latitude to impose reasonable limits on cross-examination based on concerns such as prejudice, confusion of issues and marginal relevance. See Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 679 , 106 S.Ct. 1431 , 89 L.Ed.2d 674 (1986). As such, the trial court’s decision was neither contrary to nor involved an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law, nor did it result in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the state court proceedings. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d). Moreover, the jury was in possession of sufficient evidence to apprise them of any…