FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 23 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LARRY MANUEL LECHUGA, No. 10-15627
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:07-cv-00487-JAM
v.
MEMORANDUM *
D. K. SISTO and JOHN W. HAVILAND,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 15, 2011 **
Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Larry Manuel Lechuga appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Lechuga contends that the state court excluded evidence in violation of his
constitutional rights. However, in light of the unreliability of the evidence,
Lechuga has failed to demonstrate that the state court’s decision was contrary to, or
an unreasonable application of, Supreme Court law. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); see
also Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319, 326 (2006) (“well-established rules
of evidence permit trial judges to exclude evidence if its probative value is out-
weighed by certain other factors such as unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues,
or potential to mislead the jury”); Chia v. Cambra, 360 F.3d 997, 1003 (9th Cir.
2004) (applying “a balancing test to determine whether the exclusion of evidence
in the trial court violated petitioner’s due process rights, weighing the importance
of the evidence against the state’s interest in exclusion”).
AFFIRMED.
2 10-15627