MEMORANDUM *

The district court did not err in denying Woods’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The California Court of Appeal’s conclusion that Woods had failed to establish prejudice because he was able to get virtually all of Sheridan’s statements into evidence through other witnesses was not unreasonable. See United States v. Valenzuela-Bernal, 458 U.S. 858, 867, 102 S.Ct. 3440, 73 L.Ed.2d 1193 (1982).

The California Court of Appeal’s determination that the trial court properly permitted Sheridan to claim his Fifth Amendment privilege was similarly not in error. See Mitchell v. United States, 526 U.S. 314, 326, 119 S.Ct. 1307, 143 L.Ed.2d 424 *659 (1999) (“Where the sentence has not yet been imposed a defendant may have a legitimate fear of adverse consequences from further testimony.”).

AFFIRMED.