Herman Barlow, Jr. v. Al Scribner

MEMORANDUM

State prisoner Herman Willie Barlow, Jr. appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Barlow alleges that his trial counsel’s failure to investigate and introduce evidence of third-party culpability in his trial was ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253, and we affirm the district court’s denial of the habeas petition.

This court reviews a district court’s denial of a habeas petition de novo and reviews its factual findings for clear error. Robinson v. Schriro, 595 F.3d 1086, 1099 (9th Cir.2010). Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“ADE-PA”), Barlow would be entitled to habeas relief if he demonstrated that the state court’s denial of his ineffective assistance of counsel claim “was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1). The standard for evaluating ineffective assistance of counsel was established in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), which requires that the petitioner show both that his counsel’s…