Bonilla

MEMORANDUM **

Jimmy Antonio Bonilla, a California state prisoner, appeals the judgment of the district court denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . Bonilla contends that his right to equal protection was violated by the prosecutor’s use of peremptory challenges, pursuant to Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 , 106 S.Ct. 1712 , 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986), and the California analogue, People v. Wheeler, 22 Cal.3d 258 , 148 Cal.Rptr. 890 , 583 P.2d 748 (1978). 1 We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253, and we affirm.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The district court’s denial of a § 2254 petition is subject to de novo review. Lewis v. Lewis, 321 F.3d 824, 829 (9th Cir.2003). We may reverse a state court decision only if the decision was “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States,” or if the decision was “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).

Although we “would normally be required to defer to the court of appeal’s factual finding that…