Edward L. Tiffany v. JACK PALMER, Warden

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without**
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EDWARD L. TIFFANY,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
JACK PALMER, Warden, et al.,
Respondents - Appellees.
No. 08-16311
D.C. No. 3:04-CV-0635-RLH-RAM
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Roger L. Hunt, Chief District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 14, 2010**
Before: SKOPIL, FARRIS, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Nevada state prisoner Edward Tiffany appeals from the district court’s
judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
FILED
FEB 15 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
I.
Tiffany contends his constitutional rights to confront adverse witnesses, to
due process, and to a fair trial were violated when the state trial court admitted into
evidence hearsay statements made by the child-victim to her mother and during
videotaped police interviews. We reject those contentions.
Tiffany fails to demonstrate that the state court’s admission of this hearsay
evidence was contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established
federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). No Confrontation Clause violation
occurred because the child-victim testified and was cross-examined at trial. See
California v. Green, 399 U.S. 149, 157-64 (1970); United States v. Valdez-Soto, 31
F.3d 1467, 1470-71 (9th Cir. 1994). Likewise, Tiffany was not denied due process
or a fair trial. See Jammal v. Van de Kamp, 926 F.2d 918, 920 (9th Cir. 1991)
(noting admission of evidence violates due process and prevents a fair trial “[o]nly
if there are no permissible inferences the jury may draw from the evidence”)
(emphasis in original); Kealohapauole v. Shimoda, 800 F.2d 1463, 1466 (9th Cir.
1986) (noting admission of evidence violates due process only when it “rendered
the trial fundamentally unfair”); see also Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68
(1991) (“[I]t is not the province of a federal habeas court to reexamine state-court
determinations on state-law questions.”).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
II.
We decline to certify for appeal the uncertified issue raised in Tiffany’s brief
as he has not made a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”
See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); see also Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000);
Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104 (9th Cir. 1999) (per curiam).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --