MEMORANDUM **

Alaska state prisoner Kurt Lepping appeals from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review a district court’s denial of a habeas corpus petition de novo, see Stanley v. Cullen, 633 F.3d 852, 859 (9th Cir. 2011), arid we affirm.

Lepping contends that the state trial court deprived him of due process when it *598 denied his motion for a continuance of his jury trial on charges of numerous Alaska fish and game violations. The Alaska state court’s rejection of his claim was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, nor was it based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in state court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); Ungar v. Sarafite, 376 U.S. 575, 589, 84 S.Ct. 841, 11 L.Ed.2d 921 (1964) (trial courts have broad discretion on matters of continuances, and only a “myopic insistence upon expeditiousness in the face of a justifiable request for delay” is constitutionally impermissible).

AFFIRMED.