Reyes

MEMORANDUM ***

Petitioner Isidro Samuel Reyes appeals the district court’s denial of his habeas corpus petition 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 *789 court proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1)-(2).

The California Court of Appeal did not unreasonably apply Supreme Court case law when it concluded that Juror F’s testimony that he based his decision to vote guilty on the result of a coin flip did not entitle Petitioner to a new trial. No Supreme Court authority holds that a defendant has a constitutional right to a new trial when an individual juror bases his decision to vote guilty on an irrational method, such as a coin toss. Instead, Supreme Court case law suggests the opposite result.…