Wylie

MEMORANDUM **

Nevada state prisoner Robert Wylie appeals the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 . We review de novo, see Mendez v. Small, 298 F.3d 1154, 1157-58 (9th Cir.2002), and we affirm.

Wylie contends that his due process rights were violated when the state court “reinstated” his guilty pleas. We disagree.

A review of the state court record demonstrates that Wylie’s guilty pleas complied with minimum constitutional requirements: it reflected “an affirmative showing that [the plea] was intelligent and voluntary,” Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 242 , 89 S.Ct. 1709 , 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969), and it showed that the pleas were entered by a defendant “with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences.” Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 748 , 90 S.Ct. 1463 , 25 L.Ed.2d 747 (1970).

Accordingly, the state court’s decision was not contrary to nor an unreasonable application of clearly established federal *666 law. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the *666 courts of this circuit…