MEMORANDUM *

Tamekca Walker appeals the district court’s denial of her 28 U.S.C. § 2254 ha-beas petition. We have jurisdiction under § 2253, and we affirm. 1

Walker contends the introduction at trial of potentially irrelevant and prejudicial autopsy photographs of her foster daughter violated her due process rights. Walker’s petition is governed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”) and cannot be granted unless the state court’s adjudication was: (1) “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States”; or (2) “based on an unreasonable determination of the facts.” § 2254(d). Walker argues that the state court’s decision was contrary to clearly established Supreme Court law. We are bound, however, by the holding in Holley v. Yarborough that the Supreme court “has not yet made a clear ruling that admission of irrelevant or overtly prejudicial evidence constitutes a due process violation sufficient to warrant issuance of the writ.” 568 F.3d 1091, 1101 (9th Cir. 2009). We cannot say that the state court’s decision to admit potentially irrelevant and prejudicial autopsy photographs over Walker’s objection was contrary to clearly established federal law. Walker’s petition must be denied.

AFFIRMED.