Covert

MEMORANDUM **

Petitioner James Covert, after being convicted of receipt of stolen property and possession of a firearm by a felon, appeals the district court’s denial of his habeas corpus petition. Because the California Court of Appeal held that Covert waived his Confrontation Clause claims on independent and adequate state procedural grounds, we affirm the district court’s conclusion that Covert’s Confrontation Clause claims are procedurally barred. See Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 729-30 , 111 S.Ct. 2546 , 115 L.Ed.2d 640 (1991).

We review a district court’s denial of a habeas corpus petition de novo, while findings of fact are reviewed for clear error. Nulph v. Cook, 333 F.3d 1052, 1056 (9th Cir.2003).

At trial, Covert made no specific Confrontation Clause objection. He made no objection to the form of redaction approved by the trial court, and he did not request a limiting instruction that would *872 have cured any harm, see Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200, 208 , 107 S.Ct. 1702 , 95 L.Ed.2d 176 (1987). On appeal to the California Court of Appeal, Covert argued for the first time that the state trial court violated his Confrontation Clause rights when it admitted…