
    Jose OCASIO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. James A. YATES, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 09-17467.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 17, 2013.
    
    Filed Jan. 23, 2013.
    Jose Ocasio, Vacaville, CA, pro se.
    Brian G. Smiley, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Responden1>-Appellee.
    Before: WALLACE, FARRIS, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Ocasio appeals from the district court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253, and we affirm.

The California Court of Appeal’s affir-mance of the trial court’s finding that the jury had reached a verdict was not unreasonable because: (1) the jury had reported, both orally and in writing, that it had reached a verdict; and (2) the jury described the ambiguity or contradiction in the verdict forms as a “clerical error.” See Taylor v. Maddox, 366 F.3d 992, 999 (9th Cir.2004). It follows that the trial judge did not violate any prohibition against polling the jury before a verdict has been reached. See United States v. McCaleb, 552 F.3d 1053, 1057-58 (9th Cir.2009), citing Brasfield v. United States, 272 U.S. 448, 449-50, 47 S.Ct. 135, 71 L.Ed. 345 (1926).

Nor has Ocasio shown that the California Court of Appeal’s decision was contrary to or an unreasonable application of the general rule, applied in Lowenfield v. Phelps, 484 U.S. 231, 237, 241, 108 S.Ct. 546, 98 L.Ed.2d 568 (1988), that coerciveness is determined by considering the totality of the circumstances. Ocasio has not shown that the state court failed to consider the relevant circumstances, especially in light of the significant leeway we give to state courts applying such general principles. See Harrington v. Richter, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 770, 786, 178 L.Ed.2d 624 (2011).

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