Case Name: Vitaly ZAKOUTO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. James BENEDETTI, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-06-11
Citations: 383 F. App'x 651
Docket Number: No. 08-15619
Parties: Vitaly ZAKOUTO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. James BENEDETTI, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 383
Pages: 651–651

Head Matter:
Vitaly ZAKOUTO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. James BENEDETTI, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 08-15619.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 25, 2010.
Filed June 11, 2010.
William B. Terry, Esquire, Linda Nor-vell Marquis, Esquire, Las Vegas, NV, for Petitioner-Appellant.
Michael Bongard, Deputy Attorney General, Attorney Generals Office, Ely, NV, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Nevada state prisoner Vitaly Zakouto appeals from the district court's judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
Zakouto contends that the trial court violated his confrontation rights by admitting into evidence the deceased victim's videotaped testimony from a prior family court proceeding. It is undisputed that the victim was unavailable to testify at trial and that Zakouto had an opportunity to cross-examine her at the earlier proceeding. Therefore, the state court's decision rejecting Zakouto's confrontation clause claim was neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); see also Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 59, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004); United States v. Owens, 484 U.S. 554, 559, 108 S.Ct. 838, 98 L.Ed.2d 951 (1988).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.