Acosta

MEMORANDUM *

Augustine Acosta appeals from the district court’s denial of his petition for habeas corpus. We affirm.

We review the denial of a habeas petition de novo. Landrigan v. Schriro, 441 F.3d 638, 642 (9th Cir.2006). In reviewing the merits of this petition, we apply the deferential standards of review set forth in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d). The district court’s refusal to hold an evidentiary hearing is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Landrigan, 441 F.3d at 642 .

Acosta argues that his constitutional rights were violated by the use of physical restraints during trial. There are three basic reasons for the judiciary’s “hostility to shackling.” Deck v. Missouri, 544 U.S. 622, 630 , 125 S.Ct. 2007 , 161 L.Ed.2d 953 (2005). First, “[vjisible shackling undermines the presumption of innocence and the related fairness of the factfinding process.” Id. Second, physical restraints can impede a defendant’s ability to participate in his defense. Id. at 631 , 125 S.Ct. 2007 . Third, “[t]he routine use of shackles in the presence of juries would undermine” the dignity of the judicial process. Id. To obtain habeas relief based…