Camp

MEMORANDUM *

Daniel Camp appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. Camp alleges that the state trial court’s decision to exclude evidence of witness Charles Noland’s parole status violated his Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses. Camp further alleges that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because of a conflict of interest arising from his counsel’s divided loyalties to Camp and to Noland. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253, and review denial of a § 2254 petition de *849 novo. See Bribiesca, v. Galaza, 215 F.3d 1015, 1018 (9th Cir.2000). We affirm.

Because the parties are familiar with the factual and procedural history of this case, we will not recount it here.

I. Right to confront witnesses

Camp contends that he should have been permitted to cross-examine Noland about his parole status, because a witness who is on parole might be shown to be susceptible to police pressure, and inferentially, more likely to make a false identification. Camp claims that the court’s decision to exclude evidence of Noland’s parole status violated his Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses.

We engage in a two-part…