Hegney

MEMORANDUM **

Justin Hegney appeals the denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253, and we affirm.

A district court’s decision to deny a federal habeas petition is reviewed de novo. Koerner v. Grigas, 328 F.3d 1039, 1045 *3 (9th Cir.2003). Pursuant to the Antiter-rorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”), a habeas petition

28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1).

There is no clearly established federal law creating a right to a jury and a reasonable doubt standard in a juvenile decline proceeding. See State v. Kalmakoff, 122 P.3d 224, 227 (Alaska Ct.App.2005). Hegney urges the announcement of a new rule requiring a jury and a reasonable doubt standard, and argues that the claim is not barred by Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 309-10 , 109 S.Ct. 1060 , 103 L.Ed.2d 334 (1989). Under AEDPA, however, we consider only whether the state court’s ruling was contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, Supreme Court precedent. Thus, we are bound to defer to the state coui't’s determination regardless of whether we formulate a new rule.

Hegney was not similarly situated to juveniles whose cases are retained in juvenile court,…