Ponder

MEMORANDUM **

Oregon state prisoner Joseph B. Ponder appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we affirm.

We review the district court’s decision to deny a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition de novo. Lockhart v. Terhune, 250 F.3d 1223, 1228-29 (9th Cir.2001). We *892 may grant habeas relief, however, only if the constitutional error resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court. 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d); Lockhart, 250 F.3d at 1228-29 .

Ponder contends that his attorney at his probation revocation hearings was ineffective because he failed to provide Ponder with a sign language interpreter. Ponder alleges that this error prejudiced him because he was unable to hear and challenge the testimony of two state witnesses. Ponder also alleges that counsel’s failure to provide an interpreter undermined his defense at the revocation proceeding.

In order to successfully claim ineffective assistance of counsel, Ponder must demonstrate that there is a reasonable probability that, but for…