Case Name: Miguel SOTO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Randy WHITE, Warden Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-12-06
Citations: 670 F. App'x 893
Docket Number: No. 16-5252
Parties: Miguel SOTO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Randy WHITE, Warden Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: BEFORE: McKEAGUE, KETHLEDGE, and STRANCH Circuit Judges,
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 670
Pages: 893–894

Head Matter:
Miguel SOTO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Randy WHITE, Warden Respondent-Appellee.
No. 16-5252
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Filed December 06, 2016
Dennis J. Burke,- Department of Public Advocacy, La Grange, KY, for Petitioner-Appellant
Jason Bradley Moore, Office of the Attorney General of Kentucky, Frankfort, KY, James Hays Lawson, Law Office, Louisville, KY, for Respondent-Appellee
BEFORE: McKEAGUE, KETHLEDGE, and STRANCH Circuit Judges,

Opinion:
OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Miguel Soto filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in which he asserts claims of juror bias and denial of the right to self-representation in violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) provides relief to a habeas petitioner if the state-court decision was "contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal Law, as determined by the Supreme Court." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). If fair minded jurists could disagree as to the correctness of the state court's decision, then Soto would not be entitled to relief. Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 102, 131 S.Ct. 770, 178 L.Ed.2d 624 (2011). The district court found that Soto failed to meet his burden of showing the Kentucky Supreme Court unreasonably, applied federal law on both of his claims. R. 23, Dist. Ct. Op., PID 139, 141.
This court reviews the district court's legal conclusions de novo and any factual findings for clear error. Magana v. Hofbauer, 263 F.3d 542, 546 (6th Cir. 2001). Having duly considered the district court's opinion in light of Soto's appellate arguments, we find no error. His arguments are unavailing and are fairly and adequately addressed in the magistrate court's review and recommendation as fully adopted by the district court. To issue another opinion reiterating the analysis would be duplicative and unnecessary. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court's order denying Soto's habeas corpus petition on these two claims.