David Rodius v. Attorney General of the State Nevada

MEMORANDUM

David Rodius, a Nevada state prisoner, appeals from the denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (c)(1). We review the district court’s judgment de novo, and we review the last-reasoned decision of the state court applying the standard set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d). Barker v. Fleming, 423 F.3d 1085, 1091 (9th Cir.2005). By that standard, we may not grant relief “unless the adjudication of the claim — (1) resulted 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; or (2) resulted in a decision that 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). We affirm.

Rodius’s first claim is that the Nevada Supreme Court’s decision that his counsel provided effective assistance involved an unreasonable application of federal law as determined by the Supreme Court in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88, 694 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), and Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 59 , 106 S.Ct. 366…