MEMORANDUM ***

The state court wasn’t unreasonable in holding that Porter could be forced to wear a stun belt during his trial. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2). “[Compelling circumstances” justified the use of the stun belt, Duckett v. Godinez, 67 F.3d 734, 748 (9th Cir. 1995), and there was evidence supporting a finding that the stun belt didn’t impair Porter’s ability to effectively communicate with his lawyers.

AFFIRMED.