Garibay

MEMORANDUM **

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253(c), and we affirm. Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here.

We review de novo the district court’s decision to deny Garibay’s petition for habeas corpus. 1 Similarly, dismissal based on state procedural default presents issues of law reviewed de novo. 2 Review of a state court’s findings of fact is deferential, however. Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, state court findings of fact are presumed to be correct, and the petitioner must rebut them with clear and convincing evidence.

Only two issues were certified for appeal:

As for the first issue, we conclude that the district court was correct when it determined that Garibay had not demonstrated prejudice from his trial counsel’s failure to object adequately to the evidence of the willingness of a witness to take a lie detector test. Although counsel’s failure to object was error, it did not prejudice Garibay in light of the weakness of the evidence itself and the overwhelming evidence against him.

The district court was also correct when it determined that the claims composing the…