James

MEMORANDUM **

Charles C. James (“James”) appeals the denial of his petition for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . He argues that the California trial court violated his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation by allowing the transcript of the preliminary hearing testimony of a key witness—Yolanda Smith—to be read into the record because she was “unavailable” for live questioning. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we affirm.

As this case is governed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), we may grant relief only if

28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d). From our review of the California Court of Appeal’s opinion, the last reasoned decision of the state courts in this case, see Pham v. Terhune, 400 F.3d 740, 742 (9th Cir.2005), we conclude that neither of AEDPA’s criteria have been met.

Under Barber v. Page, 390 U.S. 719, 724-25 , 88 S.Ct. 1318 , 20 L.Ed.2d 255 (1968), “a witness is not ‘unavailable’ ... unless the prosecutorial authorities have made a good-faith effort to obtain his presence at trial.” See Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 74 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980), overruled on other grounds by…