MEMORANDUM *

We have jurisdiction of this timely appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253(a), and we affirm.

Because the facts and circumstances of this case are well known to the parties and were fully aired during oral argument, we need not repeat them at length in this disposition.

Respondent Lopez concedes that Meredith’s right to participate in his trial without wearing identifiable jail clothing was violated by the trial judge. Nevertheless, Meredith is not entitled to relief if this violation had no “substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict.” Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 623, 113 S.Ct. 1710, 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993) (internal quotation marks omitted). Upon examining the record, we conclude that the violation had no such influence or effect. Meredith conceded at trial that he was in possession of stolen property from the victim’s home (Count ID as well as methamphetamine (Count III)> leaving us with only the contested residential burglary to consider (Count I)- As to this count, an eyewitness observed Meredith exiting the victim’s previously locked garage. When asked by the witness for his name, Meredith hopped over a fence and sped off down the street *364 while “tucked down” in a car. When the police apprehended him, he was in possession of two items belonging to the victim that previously had been in the house. The eyewitness promptly identified Meredith near the scene of his arrest.

Moreover, Meredith’s primary defense to the burglary was that the house involved did not qualify as a residence. This defense could not have been influenced by Meredith’s identifiable jail clothing.

AFFIRMED.