Charles

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

MEMORANDUM

The district court did not err by denying Charles’ petition for habeas relief filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 .

Charles claims ineffective assistance of counsel in two principal areas, failure to challenge the dangerous offender sentencing proceedings and the expert testimony therein, and failure to adequately advise him prior to his waiver of a jury trial.

After conducting an independent review of the record, the district court found as fact that Charles’ counsel argued against conducting a dangerous offender inquiry. When the trial court nonetheless proceeded, counsel had no reason to believe the court-appointed psychiatrist was biased or otherwise unqualified to assess Charles. The psychiatrist’s ultimate conclusion that Charles met the definition of a dangerous offender was consistent with prior findings. At sentencing counsel continued to argue against imposing the dangerous offender sentencing enhancement. These findings of fact are not clearly erroneous. Charles fails to show that the court’s appli *717 cation of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), resulted in a decision that was based on…