Fort

MEMORANDUM **

Robert Earl Fort, an Oregon State prisoner, appeals pro se the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as procedurally defaulted and without merit. Because Fort’s petition cannot succeed on the merits, we need not address the question of procedural default. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we affirm.

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 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); Van Tran v. Lindsey, 212 F.3d 1143, 1153-54 (9th Cir.) (defining “unreasonable application” as involving situations where the state court has committed clear error), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 944 , 121 S.Ct. 340 , 148 L.Ed.2d 274 (2000).

Fort first contends that the prosecutor knew that he was innocent and withheld evidence. After conducting an evidentiary hearing, the Oregon Circuit Court denied Fort’s claims of prosecutorial misconduct on the merits. Because Fort failed to rebut the state court’s…