Lloyd

MEMORANDUM **

Patrick Lloyd appeals the district court’s denial of his writ of habeas corpus for an alleged Confrontation Clause violation. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we affirm.

Lloyd’s claim was exhausted and is not procedurally barred. 1 The California Supreme Court’s denial of a state habeas petition by citing In re Waltreus 2 is not a dismissal based on procedural grounds.

The trial court’s admission of pretrial testimony despite limitations on defense cross-examination did not run contrary to, nor was it an unreasonable application of, Supreme Court precedent existing at the time of the state court’s decision. 4 Lloyd relies on Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 5 and Davis v. Alaska, 6 cases in which the failure to allow cross-examination violated the Confrontation Clause by depriving the jury of facts necessary for its credibility determination. 7 This case is distinguishable because the jury heard all of the facts that the foreclosed line of cross-examination would have disclosed and consequently the jury was not deprived of any facts upon which to base its credibility determination. 8 The Confrontation Clause demands no more than this. Accordingly,…