Magdaleno

MEMORANDUM *

Miguel Magdaleno appeals denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . We affirm.

*529 I

While Olmos’s testimony at the preliminary hearing was testimonial, Magdaleno had an adequate opportunity to cross-examine her. See Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 57 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004). He was represented by counsel; counsel cross-examined Olmos on the record and before a judge; and Olmos testified under oath. See California v. Green, 399 U.S. 149, 165 , 90 S.Ct. 1930 , 26 L.Ed.2d 489 (1970). Magdaleno’s counsel was not denied the chance to show that Olmos was biased or that she had a motive to testify as she did. See Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 680 , 106 S.Ct. 1431 , 89 L.Ed.2d 674 (1986); United States v. Larson, 460 F.3d 1200, 1206 (9th Cir.2006). Nor has he explained why the state of discovery impeded the effectiveness of cross-examination. See United States v. Koon, 34 F.3d 1416, 1427-28 (9th Cir.1994), rev’d on other grounds, 518 U.S. 81 , 116 S.Ct. 2035 , 135 L.Ed.2d 392 (1996).

II

It was not contrary to clearly established Supreme Court precedent, or an unreasonable application of it, for the…