Eastman

MEMORANDUM **

Gregory Eastman appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253(a), and review the district court’s denial de novo. See Lambert v. Blodgett, 393 F.3d 943, 964 (9th Cir.2004). We affirm.

Only one issue is before us: whether Eastman was denied due process because *791 the state trial court erroneously instructed the jury that Eastman bore the burden of proving that two prosecution witnesses were accomplices in two of the three charges against him. In previously considering this claim, the state appellate court concluded that the instruction was an error as a matter of state law, but was a harmless error.

Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AED-PA”), if a constitutional claim based on a legal error has been “adjudicated on the merits in State court,” we may not grant a petition for a writ of habeas corpus unless the state court’s adjudication of the claim “resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States…