Perez

*777 MEMORANDUM **

Albino Perez appeals from the district court’s denial of his habeas corpus petition. We omit the relevant facts as they are known to the parties.

I

Perez first claims that the California trial court denied his Confrontation Clause rights by limiting the impeachment of a witness. In the absence of a state court decision on whether the Confrontation Clause was violated, we review this claim de novo. See Pirtle v. Morgan, 813 F.3d 1160, 1167-68 (9th Cir.2002). We are satisfied that trial court’s impeachment limitations were reasonable and did not violate the Confrontation Clause. See Olden v. Kentucky, 488 U.S. 227, 232 , 109 S.Ct. 480 , 102 L.Ed.2d 513 (1988) (“a trial court may, of course, impose reasonable limits on defense counsel’s inquiry into the potential bias of a prosecution witness .... ”); Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 679 , 106 S.Ct. 1431 , 89 L.Ed.2d 674 (1986) (“The Confrontation Clause [does not guarantee] cross-examination that is effective in whatever way, and to whatever extent, the defense might wish.”). In any event, the state court’s conclusion that Perez was not prejudiced because the judge relayed the damaging information to the…