
    Michael G. ARNOLD, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Anthony KANE, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 10-16956.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 6, 2011.
    
    Filed Dec. 21, 2011.
    Charles Carbone, Law Offices of Charles Carbone, San Franciso, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.
    Clara Morgan Levers, Esquire, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
    Before: O’SCANNLAIN and BERZON, Circuit Judges, and LASNIK, District Judge.
    
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
       The Honorable Robert S. Lasnik, District Judge for the U.S. District Court for Western Washington, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Petitioner-Appellant Michael G. Arnold appeals the denial of his federal habeas petition. He argues that adverse pretrial publicity deprived him of a fair trial and that the state trial court should therefore have granted a change of venue. We affirm.

Because Arnold’s habeas petition was filed after April 24,1996, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) applies. Under AEDPA, Arnold must demonstrate that the state court’s merits decision “was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States” or “was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).

To establish a constitutional violation on grounds of adverse pretrial publicity, a criminal defendant must demonstrate either actual or presumed prejudice. Randolph v. California, 380 F.3d 1133, 1142 (9th Cir.2004). Arnold fails to establish any error, let alone one rising to the level necessary for relief under § 2254(d). The state court reasonably concluded that the publicity surrounding his trial was not extreme enough to compel a finding of presumptive prejudice. See Murphy v. Florida, 421 U.S. 794, 796-99, 95 S.Ct. 2031, 44 L.Ed.2d 589 (1975). Nor does the for-cause dismissal of two prospective jurors establish the existence of actual prejudice. See id. at 803, 95 S.Ct. 2031.

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