Case Name: John H. ALCALA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Darrell G. ADAMS, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-09-03
Citations: 394 F. App'x 416
Docket Number: No. 08-56060
Parties: John H. ALCALA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Darrell G. ADAMS, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN, FISHER and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 394
Pages: 416–417

Head Matter:
John H. ALCALA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Darrell G. ADAMS, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 08-56060.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 1, 2010.
Filed Sept. 3, 2010.
Tracy Dressner, Esq., Attorney at Law, La Crescenta, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.
John H. Alcala, pro se.
David Wildman, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General (LA), Los An-geles, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, FISHER and GOULD, 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
A California state court jury convicted John H. Alcala of three counts of assault with a semi-automatic firearm and one count of possession of a firearm by a felon. Alcala appeals the district court's denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
We agree with the district court's conclusion that the California Court of Appeal did not apply harmless-error review in an objectively unreasonable manner when it held that, even if Alcala's Confrontation Clause rights were violated, the error was harmless. See Mitchell v. Esparza, 540 U.S. 12, 18, 124 S.Ct. 7, 157 L.Ed.2d 263 (2008) (per curiam); Slovik v. Yates, 556 F.3d 747, 755 (9th Cir.2009). The admitted statements only weakly implicated Al-cala and were cumulative of other evidence properly admitted, including the 911 phone call made by Laura Chavez, the testimony of Barbara Aguilar, and the shell casing found on the ground by Officer Langton.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Circuit Rule 36-3.