Starr

MEMORANDUM

Shannon Lee Starr, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. Starr contends that his attorney denied him effective assistance of counsel by failing to challenge for cause a juror on the basis of bias. 3 We review de novo the *608 district court’s denial of a § 2254 petition. Bribiesca, v. Galaza, 215 F.3d 1015, 1018 (9th Cir.2000).

Relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 may only be granted if the petitioner shows that the state court’s decision “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,” 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). See also Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 , 120 S.Ct. 1495 , 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000); Van Tran v. Lindsey, 212 F.3d 1143 (9th Cir.2000).

This court must show considerable deference to trial attorneys’ tactical decisions. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 689 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984); United States…