Pasquale Rutulante v. James H. Gomez, Director Attorney General of California

995 F.2d 232 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Pasquale RUTULANTE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. James H. GOMEZ, Director; Attorney General of California, Respondents-Appellees. No. 92-56213. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted May 4, 1993. * Decided May 28, 1993. 1 Before KOZINSKI, SUHRHEINRICH, *** and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges 2 MEMORANDUM *** 3 We review de novo the district court's denial of a habeas petition. McSherry v. Block, 880 F.2d 1049, 1051 (9th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 111 S.Ct. 1404 (1991). A. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel 4 Rutulante has failed to establish ineffective assistance of counsel because he has not shown that his counsel's performance was deficient and that such deficient performance prejudiced his defense. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). Moreover, Rutulante has not overcome the "strong presumption that counsel's conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance; that…