Wroe

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner James Wroe (“Wroe”) appeals pro se the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition challenging his 1995 conviction for attempted manslaughter. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 . We review de novo a district court’s denial of a habeas petition, Mur-tishaw v. Woodford, 255 F.3d 926, 939 (9th Cir.2001), and affirm.

We can reverse a state court decision only if it “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)(1); Van Tran v. Lindsey, 212 F.3d 1143, 1149 (9th Cir.2000).

Wroe contends that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel because counsel failed to investigate the credibility of prosecution witnesses Janice Wermig (‘Wermig”) and Dr. Allen Doran (“Do-ran”). This contention lacks merit. The record indicates that trial counsel used discovery to obtain psychiatric records concerning these two witnesses, obtained an order requiring Doran to answer questions, extensively cross-examined both Wermig and Doran, and successfully impeached Doran. Wroe has failed to show either that…