Dyer

MEMORANDUM **

Joseph Brown Dyer III appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition challenging his conviction for second degree murder and related assault charges. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (a), and we affirm.

We review de novo the district court’s denial of a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. See Dows v. Wood, 211 F.3d 480, 484 (9th Cir.2000). Because the AEDPA applies, see 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d), Dyer must demonstrate that the state court adjudication of the merits of his claim “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); Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 , 120 S.Ct. 1495, 1523 , 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000); Van Tran v. Lindsey, 212 F.3d 1143, 1153-54 (9th Cir.2000) cert. denied 531 U.S. 944 , 121 S.Ct. 330 , 148 L.Ed.2d 274 (2000) (defining “unreasonable application” as involving situations where the state court has committed clear error).

Dyer contends the district court erred by determining that he could not show prejudice excusing the procedural default of his…