Starkey

MEMORANDUM **

Robert Starkey appeals the district court’s dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C § 2254. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 , 2253 and affirm.

The district court did not err in concluding that the state post-conviction review (PCR) court’s harmless error analysis was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1). The Supreme Court has not decided the appropriate standard of review for due process violations in the grand jury process that do not involve discrimination in grand juror selection. See Lambert v. Blodgett, 393 F.3d 943, 974 (9th Cir.2004) (“A state court decision is ‘contrary to’ clearly established Supreme Court precedent if the state court applies a rule that contradicts the governing law set forth in Supreme Court cases or if the state court confronts a set of facts materially indistinguishable from those at issue in a decision of the Supreme Court and, nevertheless, arrives at a result different from its precedent.”). The Court has found structural error in grand jury proceedings only in two situations, where jurors are excluded because of race, Vasquez…