Dulaney

MEMORANDUM *

Petitioner James C. Dulaney appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . We affirm.

Petitioner’s habeas claim is governed by the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. Rios v. Rocha, 299 F.3d 796 , 799 n. 4 (9th Cir.2002). Under AEDPA a habeas petition cannot be granted unless the state court decision was: (1) “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States;” or was (2) “based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1)-(2).

A. The Allegedly Improper Joinder of Counts 1 and

The district court did not err in upholding the California Court of Appeal’s conclusion that the joinder of Counts 1 and 2 did not substantially prejudice the jury verdict. The Court of Appeal held that Petitioner had to show “substantial prejudice” in order to merit relief. This test is compatible with both Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit law. See United States v. Lane, 474 U.S. 438, 449 , 106 S.Ct. 725 , 88 L.Ed.2d 814 (1986);…