MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Larry Manuel Lechuga appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

Lechuga contends that the state court excluded evidence in violation of his constitutional rights. However, in light of the unreliability of the evidence, Lechuga has failed to demonstrate that the state court’s decision was contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, Supreme Court law. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); see also Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319, 326, 126 S.Ct. 1727, 164 L.Ed.2d 503 (2006) (“well-established rules of evidence permit trial judges to exclude evidence if its probative value is out-weighed by certain other factors such as unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or potential to mislead the *791 jury”); Chia v. Cambra, 860 F.3d 997, 1003 (9th Cir. 2004) (applying “a balancing test to determine whether the exclusion of evidence in the trial court violated petitioner’s due process rights, weighing the importance of the evidence against the state’s interest in exclusion”).

AFFIRMED.