
    Jon Arnold WOODARD, Petitioner-Appellant, v. John (Craig) TURNBULL, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 09-35207.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 30, 2012.
    
    Filed Sept. 6, 2012.
    Hugh William Fleischer, Law Offices of Hugh W. Fleischer, Anchorage, AK, for Petitioner-Appellant.
    William Hawley, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Alaska Attorney General, Anchorage, AK, for Respondent-Appellee.
    Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jon Arnold Woodard appeals the district court’s denial of his habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Woodard was convicted in Alaska state court of first-degree robbery and second-degree murder after forensic analysis, eyewitness identification, accomplice testimony, and other evidence all identified Woodard as the man who robbed a Carrs grocery store and killed a security guard. Woodard appeals the district court’s denial of his habeas petition, claiming miscellaneous purported errors in his trial violated his Fifth Amendment rights.

Under Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 637-38, 113 S.Ct. 1710, 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993), habeas relief is warranted when “trial error” has occurred only if the error substantially influenced the verdict. With respect to the shackling, to the extent there was error, it did not “ha[ve] a substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict.” Larson v. Palmateer, 515 F.3d 1057, 1064 (9th Cir.2008) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). All of the errors Woodard asserts occurred are trial error, none of which, even cumulated, could have substantially affected the verdict given the overwhelming forensic evidence of Woodard’s guilt.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
     