Frank Hersha, Jr. v. Mark Jones

MEMORANDUM

Frank Hersha appeals a district court order denying his habeas corpus petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we affirm.

Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”), federal ha-beas relief may not be granted unless the state court’s decision “was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States,” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1), or was “ based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding,” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(2). This is a “highly deferential” standard of review, “which demands that state-court decisions be given the benefit of the doubt.” Woodford v. Visciotti, 537 U.S. 19, 24 , 123 S.Ct. 357 , 154 L.Ed.2d 279 (2002) (quoting Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320 , 333 n.7, 117 S.Ct. 2059 , 138 L.Ed.2d 481 (1997)). Where a petitioner seeks review of a state court’s denial of claims of ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), our review is “doubly deferential.” Knowles v. Mirzayance, 556 U.S. 111, 123 ,…