Case Name: Floyd MARTIN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. G.D. LEWIS, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-03-23
Citations: 599 F. App'x 628
Docket Number: No. 13-17597
Parties: Floyd MARTIN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. G.D. LEWIS, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before: W. FLETCHER, DAVIS , and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 599
Pages: 628–629

Head Matter:
Floyd MARTIN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. G.D. LEWIS, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 13-17597.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 11, 2015.
Filed March 23, 2015.
Benjamin Patrick Ramos, Law Office of Benjamin P. Ramos, Folsom, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.
Laura Wetzel Simpton, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before: W. FLETCHER, DAVIS , and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
The Honorable Andre M. Davis, Senior Circuit Judge for the U.S. , Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Floyd Martin appeals the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 2258(a) and affirm the district court's order denying the petition.
1. The parties have fully briefed the certified Confrontation Clause issue, and there are no exceptional circumstances warranting vacatur of the certificate of appealability. Phelps v. Alameda, 366 F.3d 722, 728 (9th Cir.2004).
2. We review de novo a district court's denial of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Lambert v. Blodgett, 393 F.3d 943, 964 (9th Cir.2004). The California Court of Appeal's silent adjudication of Martin's Confrontation Clause claim was neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, clearly established Supreme Court precedent. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). Detective Quinn's testimony relaying Timothy Hurst's and Steven Hendrix's out-of-court statements did not violate the Confrontation Clause because both Hurst and Hendrix testified at Martin's trial and were subject to cross-examination. See Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 59 n. 9, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004) ("[W]hen the declarant appears for cross-examination at trial, the Confrontation Clause places no constraints at all on the use of his prior testimonial statements.").
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
. The parties are familiar with the facts so we do not recount them here.