Frazier

MEMORANDUM **

Michael K. Frazier appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition seeking habeas relief from a 56-year to life sentence after his conviction on charges related to manufacture, possession, and distribution of methamphetamine. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2258 and affirm because the California Court of Appeal did not make a contrary or unreasonable application of clearly established federal law.

Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount them in detail except as necessary. We review de novo the district court’s denial of a petition for writ of habeas corpus. Wade v. Terhune, 202 F.3d 1190, 1194 (9th Cir.2000). For such purpose, we look to “the state’s last reasoned decision.” Avila v. Calaza, 297 F.3d 911, 918 (9th Cir.2002). We may not grant relief “unless the adjudication of the claim ... resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States or ... was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.” 28 U.S.C.…