Jones

MEMORANDUM **

Petitioner Edwin Jones, II, appeals the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. We have jurisdiction and affirm.

Petitioner made several arguments that his trial counsel was ineffective. Under the facts of this case, reviewed under the deferential standard mandated by 28 U.S.C. § 2254 , even if counsel committed unprofessional errors, none of Petitioner’s arguments establishes that there is a reasonable probability that the results of the proceedings would have been different. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).

Petitioner argues that unconstitutional limitations were placed on the presentation of defense evidence. We are bound by the state court’s interpretation of its law of evidence, and must therefore accept the ruling that the evidence of the victim’s aggression could be initially excluded under state law. Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62 , 112 S.Ct. 475 , 116 L.Ed.2d 385 (1991). We cannot say that this ruling was so “arbitrary” or “disproportionate to the purposes [it was] designed to serve” that it violated the constitution. See United States v. Scheffer, 523 U.S. 303, 308…