¶2 California state prisoner Michael Howard Poland appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
¶3 Poland contends that the trial court violated his constitutional rights by denying his motion for a mistrial because the jury committed misconduct by considering, during deliberations, a transcript that was not *731 admitted into evidence. The record reflects that the California state court’s rejection of this claim did not result in a decision that was “contrary to, or involve[ ] an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law,” or “an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.” See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); see also Mancuso v. Olivarez, 292 F.3d 939, 949-53 (9th Cir.2002).
¶4 AFFIRMED.