Notice: Seventh Circuit Rule 53(b)(2) States Unpublished Orders Shall Not Be Cited or Used As Precedent Except to Support a Claim of Res Judicata, Collateral Estoppel or Law of the Case in Any Federal Court Within the Circuit.thomas J. Paters, Petitioner-appellant, v. Robert Kent,1 Respondent-appellee, 132 F.3d 36 (7th Cir. 1997)

ORDER

Thomas J. Paters appeals from the district court's denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In 1994, Paters was convicted by a jury of one count of racketeering in violation of Wis. Stat. § 946.82(4) and eight counts of theft by' fraud in violation of Wis. Stat. § 943.20(1) (d). Paters filed a direct appeal to the Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, which denied Paters's appeal on the merits. In July 1996, the Wisconsin Supreme Court denied Paters's petition for review. On August 29,1996, Paters petitioned the district court under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on the basis that he was denied his constitutional right to confrontation because the district court allowed third-party financial record summaries into evidence under the business records hearsay exception.²  The district court denied Paters's habeas petition, but later granted Paters's request for a certificate of appealability "on the issue of whether the trial court's admission of document summaries violated Paters's Sixth Amendment rights."

Paters's habeas petition was filed after April 24, 1996; therefore, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) governs our analysis. Holman v. Gilmore, 126 F.3d 876, 880 (7th Cir. 1997). A writ of habeas corpus may issue on Paters's argument that he was denied his constitutional right to confrontation only if the state court's adjudication "resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) (1). We review the state court's legal determinations, as well as mixed questions of fact and law de novo. Hall v. Washington, 106 F.3d 742, 748 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 118 S. Ct. 264 (1997).

Paters argues that the trial court erred by admitting business record summaries into evidence because the records were inadmissible hearsay, and thus, he was denied his right to confrontation. This argument was flatly rejected by the Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, which relied upon White v. Illinois, 502 U.S. 346, 356 n. 8 (1992), for the proposition that "firmly-rooted" exceptions to the hearsay rule satisfy the reliability requirement posed by the confrontation clause. Paters has not cited to any Supreme Court case law that supports his position that the state court's ruling was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of Supreme Court case law. Indeed, there is no Supreme Court case law that holds that the business records exception is not a "firmly-rooted" exception to the hearsay rule.³  As such, Paters's § 2254 petition fails. Therefore, the district court's judgment is

AFFIRMED.