Sypho

MEMORANDUM **

Thedford Charles Sypho, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition, challenging his convictions for sale of marijuana and possession of marijuana for sale. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 . We review de novo, Bean v. Calderon, 163 F.3d 1073, 1077 (9th Cir.1998), and we affirm.

First, Sypho contends he received ineffective assistance of counsel because counsel failed to investigate, made highly prejudicial and inflammatory remarks, failed to impeach a witness, and failed to present jury instructions. A review of the record shows that counsel conducted a reasonable investigation based on information he had prior to trial. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 690-91 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). Also, the remarks that counsel made were not prejudicial nor inflammatory when read in context; instead, they were a strategic part of his defense theory. See id. Furthermore, not only was the failure to impeach the witness a tactical decision, but Sypho fails to demonstrate a reasonable probability that the result would have been different. See id. Finally, Sypho cannot demonstrate how counsel’s…