Birdwell

MEMORANDUM *

Billy Paul Birdwell appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging his conviction for murder entered in Ventura County (California) Superior Court. Birdwell contends that the California court violated his Due Process rights under the Fifth Amendment by excluding, on hearsay grounds, testimony about recent acts of abuse by Birdwell’s stepfather toward his mother and sister. We have jurisdiction to hear this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253. Because the parties are familiar with the facts and procedural history, they are not recited here except as necessary to explain our analysis. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the district court’s decision.

Denial of a § 2254 habeas petition is reviewed de novo. Killian v. Poole, 282 F.3d 1204, 1207 (9th Cir.2002). Birdwell’s petition was filed after the effective date of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”), Pub.L. No. 104-32, 110 Stat. 1214 (1996); consequently, the standards of review outlined in the AEDPA amendments to § 2254 apply. Under those amendments, a petitioner must demonstrate that the state court’s adjudication…