Case Name: Santawn Atuanya MILLER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Anthony LAMARQUE, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-03-08
Citations: 370 F. App'x 781
Docket Number: No. 07-56279
Parties: Santawn Atuanya MILLER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Anthony LAMARQUE, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 370
Pages: 781–782

Head Matter:
Santawn Atuanya MILLER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Anthony LAMARQUE, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 07-56279.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 16, 2010.
Filed March 8, 2010.
Santawn Atuanya Miller, Delano, CA, pro se.
Catherine Okawa Kohm, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA — Office of the California Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, 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
California state prisoner Santawn Atuanya Miller appeals from the district court's judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
Miller contends that the California Court of Appeal unreasonably applied clearly established federal law when it determined that the tidal court did not violate his constitutional right to present a defense by excluding out-of-court exculpatory statements by an absent witness. The district court did not err in rejecting this argument because the exculpatory statements were unreliable and non-inculpato-ry. See LaGrand v. Stewart, 133 F.3d 1253, 1266 (9th Cir.1998); see also Williamson v. United States, 512 U.S. 594, 601, 114 S.Ct. 2431, 129 L.Ed.2d 476 (1994).
Miller also argues that the California Court of Appeal unreasonably applied clearly established federal law by determining that his due process rights were not violated when the trial court denied his motion for a mistrial. He contends that his right to a fair trial was violated because defense counsel referred to exculpatory statements in his opening statement, which were later excluded from evidence. The district court did not err in rejecting this contention. See Lincoln v. Sunn, 807 F.2d 805, 809 (9th Cir.1987); see also Arizona v. Washington, 434 U.S. 497, 511, 98 S.Ct. 824, 54 L.Ed.2d 717 (1978).
We do not address the State's procedural default argument because Miller's claims are clearly without merit. See Franklin v. Johnson, 290 F.3d 1223, 1232 (9th Cir.2002).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.