
    Darryl Allen SMITH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. J.F. SALAZAR, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 07-56393.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 16, 2010.
    
    Filed March 10, 2010.
    Gary Paul Burcham, Law Office of Debra Dilorio, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.
    Darryl Allen Smith, March Arb, CA, pro se.
    Robert M. Foster, Esquire, Office of the California Attorney General, San Diego, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
    Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Darryl Allen Smith appeals from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

Smith contends that his constitutional rights were violated when the trial court refused to excuse a juror who allegedly harbored a bias against him. The state court’s decision rejecting this claim was neither contrary to, nor involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 215, 102 S.Ct. 940, 71 L.Ed.2d 78 (1982); Ristaino v. Ross, 424 U.S. 589, 595 n. 6, 96 S.Ct. 1017, 47 L.Ed.2d 258 (1976). Moreover, the state court’s decision did not constitute an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2), (e)(1); Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412, 429, 105 S.Ct. 844, 83 L.Ed.2d 841 (1985).

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