Larry Manuel Lechuga v. D. K. SISTO and JOHN W. HAVILAND

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
LARRY MANUEL LECHUGA,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
D. K. SISTO and JOHN W. HAVILAND,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 10-15627
D.C. No. 2:07-cv-00487-JAM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 15, 2011**
Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
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.
FILED
FEB 23 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-15627 2
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 (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, 360 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.

-- 2 of 2 --