Stephenson

MEMORANDUM *

California state prisoner William Stephenson appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for habeas corpus. We affirm, rejecting all nine of Stephenson’s claims.

1. Defense counsel’s stipulation to a joinder of the Klopp and Wilshusen trials was not objectively unreasonable. Therefore, Stephenson does not establish that the California Supreme Court’s denial of his ineffective assistance of counsel claim “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).

2. Stephenson concedes that his Fourth Amendment claim regarding the photograph taken of him is proeedurally defaulted. His Sixth Amendment claim is not supported by an adequate factual basis. See Bragg v. Galaza, 242 F.3d 1082, 1090 (9th Cir.) as amended on denial of reh’g, 253 F.3d 1150 (9th Cir.2001) (holding that a petitioner must diligently pursue his claims in the state courts and resolve factual ambiguities or the petition will be dismissed without remand for an evidentiary hearing).

3. Stephenson fails to show how he was the victim of prosecutorial misconduct and offers merely…