Blocker

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner John Scott Blocker appeals from the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 and 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

Appellant contends that his rights under the Confrontation Clause were violated by the admission of incriminatory out-of-court statements made by his non-testifying co-defendant. Habeas relief is unavailable because the California Court of Appeal’s denial of this claim was neither contrary to nor an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1).

We do not apply Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004), because appellant’s conviction became final prior to that decision. See Whorton v. Bockting, — U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 1173, 1180-82 , 167 L.Ed.2d 1 (2007). Rather, the applicable framework is set forth in Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 66 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980), which permits the admission of hearsay statements against a criminal defendant so long as the speaker is unavailable and the statements bear adequate indicia of reliability, either falling within a “firmly rooted…