Carranza

MEMORANDUM *

Pedro Mendoza Carranza appeals the district court’s denial of his Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241 and 2254. The Washington Supreme Court affirmed Carranza’s conviction of first-degree kidnaping and first-degree burglary. 1 The district court denied Carranza’s request for habeas review. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253, and we affirm.

Appellant’s conviction became final before the Supreme Court announced a new rule of criminal procedure in Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004). Therefore, Crawford is inapplicable to this case. Whorton v. Bockting, — U.S. —, 127 S.Ct. 1173, 1181-84 , 167 L.Ed.2d 1 (2007). The governing precedent here is Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980). See Whorton, 127 S.Ct. at 1178 . Under Roberts , former testimony is admissible under the Sixth Amendment upon proof that the declarant is unavailable and that the earlier testimony “bears adequate ‘indicia of reliability.’ ” Roberts, 448 U.S. at 66 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 .

*779 The Washington Supreme Court’s determination that the witnesses were unavailable was not…