Welch

MEMORANDUM **

Roger Dale Welch appeals pro se the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for habeas corpus challenging his conviction for assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury, with a sentence enhancement for infliction of great bodily injury. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we affirm. We review the district court’s denial of a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition de *548 novo. Dows v. Wood, 211 F.3d 480, 484 (9th Cir.2000).

Welch contends that counsel was ineffective for failing to consult with and present the testimony of a medical expert. We may not grant federal habeas relief on Welch’s claim unless a state court’s ruling “resulted in a decision that was contrary to or, 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); Weighall v. Middle, 215 F.3d 1058, 1062 (9th Cir.2000).

The California Court of Appeal’s conclusion that Welch was not prejudiced by his trial counsel’s failure to present medical expert testimony was not an unreasonable application of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 691 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d…