Case ID: f-appx_376/html/0687-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Carnell U. PRATT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Teresa A. SCHWARTZ, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 07-55457.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 5, 2010.
    
    Filed April 16, 2010.
    
      Carnell U. Pratt, San Luis Obispo, CA, pro se.
    Timothy M. Weiner, Esq., AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
    Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Carnell U. Pratt appeals from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

Pratt contends that his due process rights were violated when the trial court admitted testimony about Pratt’s tattoo without instructing the jury that it could not consider the testimony as propensity evidence. However, the state courts’ rejection of this claim was not objectively unreasonable. See Himes v. Thompson, 336 F.3d 848, 852-53 (9th Cir.2003) (describing standard of review); see also Alberni v. McDaniel, 458 F.3d 860, 866-67 (9th Cir.2006) (holding that a due process right against admission of propensity evidence “has not been clearly established by the Supreme Court, as required by AEDPA”). Furthermore, our review of the record indicates that the district court correctly determined that any error in omitting a limiting instruction was harmless under the standard announced in Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 623, 113 S.Ct. 1710, 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.