Maldonado

MEMORANDUM **

Jose Jesus Maldonado appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for habeas corpus. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d). We affirm.

We apply the strictures set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)-(e) when we consider Maldonado’s claims. That means that relief could be granted only if Maldonado were able to show that the decisions of the state courts were: either contrary to or an unreasonable application of federal law as declared by the Supreme Court; or based on an unreasonable determination of the facts. See id.; Price v. Vincent, 538 U.S. 634 , 123 S.Ct. 1848, 1852-53 , 155 L.Ed.2d 877 (2003); Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 73-76 , 123 S.Ct. 1166, 1173-75 , 155 L.Ed.2d 144 (2003); Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 412-13 , 120 S.Ct. 1495, 1523 , 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000).

(1) Maldonado asserts that because gang behavior testimony is irrelevant, the state courts violated his constitutional due process rights when they allowed its admission. We disagree. Assuming that the Supreme Court has spoken on the matter of admission of irrelevant evidence, 1 we are unable to say that the evidence was entirely irrelevant to the issue of aiding and abetting. It explained the actions…