Charles

MEMORANDUM **

Monroe Charles, a Nevada state prisoner, appeals from the district court’s denial of his federal habeas petition. We affirm.

Charles contends that he was denied the right to confront witnesses when his trial proceeded without him after he failed to return from the lunch recess. The Confrontation Clause guarantees an accused the right to be present at every stage of his trial. See Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337, 338 , 90 S.Ct. 1057 , 25 L.Ed.2d 353 (1970). This right may be waived, however, by a defendant who voluntarily absents himself from trial. See Diaz v. United States, 223 U.S. 442, 455 , 32 S.Ct. 250 , 56 L.Ed. 500 (1912); Taylor v. United States, 414 U.S. 17, 18-20 , 94 S.Ct. 194 , 38 L.Ed.2d 174 (1973). The state court made a finding of fact that Charles’ absence was voluntary, caused by his consumption of “enough alcohol to become quite intoxicated.” A state court’s factual findings are *646 presumed correct unless rebutted by clear and convincing evidence. Gonzalez v. Pliler, 341 F.3d 897, 903 (9th Cir.2003); 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (e)(1). Charles has not met this threshold; therefore, presuming the state court’s voluntariness determination to be correct, we…