Case Name: Larry Manuel LECHUGA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. D.K. SISTO and John W. Haviland, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-02-23
Citations: 415 F. App'x 790
Docket Number: No. 10-15627
Parties: Larry Manuel LECHUGA, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. D.K. SISTO and John W. Haviland, Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 415
Pages: 790–791

Head Matter:
Larry Manuel LECHUGA, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. D.K. SISTO and John W. Haviland, Defendants—Appellees.
No. 10-15627.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 15, 2011.
Filed Feb. 23, 2011.
Larry Manuel Lechuga, Vacaville, CA, pro se.
Craig Steven Meyers, Esquire, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, 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 Larry Manuel Lechuga 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.
Lechuga contends that the state court excluded evidence in violation of his constitutional rights. However, in light of the unreliability of the evidence, Lechuga has failed to demonstrate that the state court's decision was contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, Supreme Court law. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); see also Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319, 326, 126 S.Ct. 1727, 164 L.Ed.2d 503 (2006) ("well-established rules of evidence permit trial judges to exclude evidence if its probative value is out-weighed by certain other factors such as unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or potential to mislead the jury"); Chia v. Cambra, 860 F.3d 997, 1003 (9th Cir.2004) (applying "a balancing test to determine whether the exclusion of evidence in the trial court violated petitioner's due process rights, weighing the importance of the evidence against the state's interest in exclusion").
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.