FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 22 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHANCELLOR WADE, No. 11-16248
Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:08-cv-00456-MCE
v.
MEMORANDUM *
M. C. KRAMER,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Morrison C. England, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 21, 2012 **
Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Chancellor Wade 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. Appellant. P. 34(a)(2).
Wade contends that his constitutional rights were violated under Batson v.
Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), because the prosecutor’s race-neutral justifications
for striking two African-American jurors were pretextual. The California Court of
Appeal’s determination that there was no Batson violation was not an unreasonable
application of clearly established federal law. See Harrington v. Richter, 131 S.
Ct. 770, 785 (2011) (distinguishing an “incorrect” from an “unreasonable”
application of federal law under AEDPA). The state court’s decision was also not
based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in the light of the record
before the court, see 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); Felkner v. Jackson, 131 S. Ct. 1305,
1307 (2011) (“On federal habeas review, AEDPA imposes a highly deferential
standard for evaluating state-court rulings and demands that state-court decisions
be given the benefit of the doubt.”) (internal citations omitted). The district court
properly denied relief because Wade did not present clear and convincing evidence
rebutting the presumption that the trial court’s factual findings are correct. See 28
U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1); Miller-El v. Dretke, 545 U.S. 231, 240 (2005).
AFFIRMED.
2 11-16248