Reeves

MEMORANDUM *

William Douglas Reeves appeals from the district court’s denial of his petition for habeas corpus. We affirm.

We review the denial of a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition de novo. Arredondo v. Ortiz, 365 F.3d 778, 781 (9th Cir. 2004). The merits of this petition are viewed in light of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). See Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 336 , 117 S.Ct. 2059 , 138 L.Ed.2d 481 (1997). Under AEDPA, a habeas petition cannot be granted unless the state court decision was (1) “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States,” or (2) “based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(l)-(2). “Clearly established Federal law” refers to the holdings, rather than the dicta, of the *668 Supreme Court at the time of the state court decision. Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 412 , 120 S.Ct. 1495 , 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000).

Reeves argues that the admitted bias of his sentencing judge constitutes structural error. However, no “clearly established…