Davis

MEMORANDUM **

Marcell Darnell Davis appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for habeas corpus that challenged his state conviction for armed robbery. We affirm because Davis’ 6th Amendment confronta *600 tion rights were not violated by the admission of the redacted confession of his codefendant Henry Puckett.

Puckett’s confession, unlike the confessions in Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 , 88 S.Ct. 1620 , 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968), and Gray v. Maryland, 523 U.S. 185, 192 , 118 S.Ct. 1151 , 140 L.Ed.2d 294 (1998), made no explicit reference to Davis. Compare Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200, 211 , 107 S.Ct. 1702 , 95 L.Ed.2d 176 (1987) (“[T]he Confrontation Clause is not violated by the admission of a nontestifying codefendant’s confession with a proper limiting instruction when ... the confession is redacted to eliminate not only the defendant’s name, but any reference to his or her existence.”) Davis argues that the confession still violated his 6th Amendment rights because Puckett’s claim that he “did not bring the gun that he used from Phoenix” implicitly referenced Davis.

We disagree. For a statement to violate a defendant’s Bruton rights, it must “facially,…