
    Alfred Bruce CROSS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Doug DRETKE, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 04-20396.
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Decided April 4, 2005.
    Alfred Bruce Cross, Gatesville, TX, pro se.
    Gretchen Berumen Merenda, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Texas, Austin, TX, for Respondent-Appellee.
    Before GARZA, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Alfred Bruce Cross, Texas prisoner # 781787, appeals the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition challenging his bribery conviction. The issue on which a certificate of appealability was granted is “whether Cross’s trial was rendered fundamentally unfair by the trial court’s exclusion as inadmissible hearsay of Cross’s proffered testimony concerning his conversations with Deputy Odem.” See Cross v. Dretke, No. 04-20396 (5th Cir. Sept. 8, 2004) (unpublished).

We hold that the state court’s determination that, even if error, the evidentiary ruling was harmless was neither contrary to clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court nor based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the state-court proceedings. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 411-12, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000). Cross introduced evidence that he was induced to commit the offense, but, finding his testimony not credible, the jury rejected the entrapment defense. The record does not support a determination that Cross’s proffered testimony, largely cumulative of his trial testimony, would have had “substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict” and was therefore harmless. See Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 631, 113 S.Ct. 1710, 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     