Ratsavongsy

MEMORANDUM **

Respondent Edward Caden (“the State”) appeals the District Court’s order granting Petitioner Daoleaung Ratsavongsy’s (“Ratsavongsy’s”) 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. A jury found Ratsavongsy guilty of attempted murder, assault with a firearm and deadly weapon, and discharging a firearm at a motor vehicle. On direct appeal, Ratsavongsy alleged ten instances of pros *11 ecutorial misconduct. The California Court of Appeal held that the prosecutor committed three errors, all found to have been harmless. The State contends that the District Court erred when it found the California Court of Appeal’s decision to be contrary to and an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court.

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2258 . We review the District Court’s grant of Ratsavongsy’s habeas petition de novo, Clark v. Murphy, 331 F.3d 1062, 1067 (9th Cir.2003) (as amended), and now REVERSE.

Under § 2254(d)(1) of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, a district court cannot grant Ratsavongsy’s habeas petition unless the California Court of Appeal’s adjudication of his claims “resulted in a decision that was…