22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T485,MEMORANDUM Anthony Reed appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 federal habeas petition. We affirm. The state court’s determination that Reed’s counselors were not constitutionally ineffective for failing to object to juror misconduct did not “result[ ] in a decision that 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). There is no evidence that juror number 244 engaged in misconduct. Thus, there were no legitimate grounds upon which Reed’s defense counselors could have objected. Thus, their decision not to object to did not fall “below an objective standard of reasonableness.” Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). The remainder of Reed’s arguments are not properly before us, because Reed raised them for the first time on appeal. See United States v. Carlson, 900 F.2d 1346, 1349 (9th Cir. 1990). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.24:T4b2,

MEMORANDUM

Anthony Reed appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 federal habeas petition. We affirm.

The state court’s determination that Reed’s counselors were not constitutionally ineffective for failing to object to juror misconduct did not “result[ ] in a decision that 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). There is no evidence that juror number 244 engaged in misconduct. Thus, there were no legitimate grounds upon which Reed’s defense counselors could have objected. Thus, their decision not to object to did not fall “below an objective standard of reasonableness.” Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). The remainder of Reed’s arguments are not properly before us, because Reed raised them for the first time on appeal. See United States v. Carlson, 900 F.2d 1346, 1349 (9th Cir. 1990).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.