Case Name: Michael R. KENNEDY, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. John C. MARSHALL, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-07-02
Citations: 386 F. App'x 591
Docket Number: No. 07-55053
Parties: Michael R. KENNEDY, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. John C. MARSHALL, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 386
Pages: 591–592

Head Matter:
Michael R. KENNEDY, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. John C. MARSHALL, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 07-55053.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 29, 2010.
Filed July 2, 2010.
Michael R. Kennedy, Jr., San Luis Obis-po, CA, pro se.
Heather F. Crawford, Esq., Office of the Deputy Attorney General, San Diego, CA, for Respondent-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 Michael R. Kennedy, Jr. appeals pro se from the district court's judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
Kennedy contends that the trial court's admission into evidence of the victim's preliminary hearing testimony violated his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation. This contention fails because the record reflects that the prosecution went to considerable lengths to obtain the victim's attendance at trial, and thus satisfied the "good-faith effort" required to demonstrate unavailability. See Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 74-76, 100 S.Ct. 2531, 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980); see also Windham v. Merkle, 163 F.3d 1092, 1102 (1998). Moreover, Kennedy cross-examined the victim at the preliminary hearing. See Ohio, 448 U.S. at 71-73, 100 S.Ct. 2531. Thus, the state court's decision denying Kennedy's claims was neither contrary to, nor involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Supreme Court law. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1).
We do not address the State's exhaustion argument because it is "perfectly clear" that the claim fails on the merits. See Cassett v. Stewart, 406 F.3d 614, 624 (9th Cir.2005).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.