¶2 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.
¶3 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).
¶4 AFFIRMED.