Anthony Plummer, Petitioner-appellant, v. Michael Pickett, Respondent-appellee, 110 F.3d 69 (9th Cir. 1997)

MEMORANDUM^** 

California state prisoner Anthony Plummer appeals pro se the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus alleging his trial violated due process because of the state court's erroneous admission of evidence. We affirm the district court because Plummer did not establish that admission of unrelated drug evidence meant he was actually prejudiced by a constitutional trial error which had a "substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury's verdict," as required for federal habeas relief based on state trial error. See Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 637 (1993). Plummer further did not establish that "the admission of the evidence was arbitrary or so prejudicial that it rendered the trial fundamentally unfair." Walters v. Maass, 45 F.3d 1355, 1357 (9th Cir. 1995); see also Jammal v. Van de Kamp, 926 F.2d 918, 920 (9th Cir. 1991) ("only if there are no permissible inferences the jury may draw from the evidence can its admission violate due process").

AFFIRMED.