Case Name: Harold MORALES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Rosanne CAMPBELL, Warden, Respondent-Appellee, People of the State of California, Real-party-in-interest-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-07-21
Citations: 388 F. App'x 728
Docket Number: No. 08-16294
Parties: Harold MORALES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Rosanne CAMPBELL, Warden, Respondent-Appellee, People of the State of California, Real-party-in-interest-Appellee.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 388
Pages: 728–729

Head Matter:
Harold MORALES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Rosanne CAMPBELL, Warden, Respondent-Appellee, People of the State of California, Real-party-in-interest-Appellee.
No. 08-16294.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 29, 2010.
Filed July 21, 2010.
Paul McCarthy, Robert J. Beles Law Offices, Robert Joseph Beles, Oakland, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.
Sharon Birenbaum, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent-Appellee/Real-party-in-inter-est-Appellee.
Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, 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 Harold Morales appeals from the district court's judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
Morales contends that the trial court violated his Sixth Amendment rights by admitting statements by the woman he was convicted of murdering. Morales argues that Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353, 128 S.Ct. 2678, 171 L.Ed.2d 488 (2008), applies retroactively, or alternatively, the state court's application of the "forfeiture by wrongdoing" doctrine was contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law as determined by the United States Supreme Court at the time of his appeal. These contentions are foreclosed. See Ponce v. Felker, 606 F.3d 596 (9th Cir.2010).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.