*636 MEMORANDUM **

The California Court of Appeal determined as an alternative ground for affirming Jones’s conviction that “[d]efendant cannot have suffered prejudice, even if there are materials in [Officer] Tapia’s file bearing on her credibility that should have been disclosed [prior to trial].” Our review of the record demonstrates that this holding was not (1) “contrary to, or ... an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States,” or (2) “based on a unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1) and (2).

The record also demonstrates that the alleged discovery and disclosure violations did not have a substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict. See Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 113 S.Ct. 1710, 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993). Given (1) the percipient direct testimony of Officer Barillas, Officer Dad-isho, and Officer Mora (which corroborated the testimony of Officer Tapia), (2) Jones’s counsel’s argument to the jury that Tapia’s testimony about what she saw and what she could not see was “absolutely and completely honest,” and (3) the testimony about the respective roles of the “dealer” and the “hook” in these kinds of drug sales, the evidence against Jones was substantially compelling and more than sufficient to sustain the jury’s verdict.

AFFIRMED.