Pratt v. Schwartz , 376 F. App'x 687 ( 2010 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 16 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CARNELL U. PRATT, No. 07-55457
Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. CV-04-04142-DOC
v.
MEMORANDUM *
TERESA A. SCHWARTZ,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
David O. Carter, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 5, 2010 **
Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Carnell U. Pratt appeals from the district court’s
judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
*
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).
Pratt contends that his due process rights were violated when the trial court
admitted testimony about Pratt’s tattoo without instructing the jury that it could not
consider the testimony as propensity evidence. However, the state courts’ rejection
of this claim was not objectively unreasonable. See Himes v. Thompson, 336 F.3d
848, 852-53 (9th Cir. 2003) (describing standard of review); see also Alberni v.
McDaniel, 458 F.3d 860, 866-67 (9th Cir. 2006) (holding that a due process right
against admission of propensity evidence “has not been clearly established by the
Supreme Court, as required by AEDPA”). Furthermore, our review of the record
indicates that the district court correctly determined that any error in omitting a
limiting instruction was harmless under the standard announced in Brecht v.
Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 623 (1993).
AFFIRMED.
2 07-55457