Jacobs

MEMORANDUM

Nevada state prisoner Michael D. Jacobs appeals pro se the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition alleging that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call several witnesses at trial. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we affirm.

We review a district court’s denial of a habeas petition de novo. See Johnson v. Baldwin, 114 F.3d 835, 838 (9th Cir.1997). Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, we may only disturb a state court’s determination of law if it resulted in a decision which was contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established Federal law as determined by the Supreme Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d); Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 , 120 S.Ct. 1495, 1519 , 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000); Van Tran v. Lindsey, 212 F.3d 1143, 1153-54 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 944 , 121 S.Ct. 340 , 148 L.Ed.2d 274 , 69 U.S.L.W. 3156 (2000). A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is examined under the “unreasonable application” prong of § 2254(d). See Weighall v. Middle, 215 F.3d 1058, 1062 (9th Cir.2000).

Jacobs contends that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by…