Cabanilla

MEMORANDUM **

Linda Cabanilla appeals the district court’s denial of her habeas corpus petition after an evidentiary hearing, which we directed that court to hold. 1 We affirm.

There is little to add to the district court’s cogent analysis on October 25, 2001. That analysis came after a three day evidentiary hearing, carefully explained the competing considerations, and resolved them. Suffice it to say that:

(1) Considering the investigation that counsel did perform, and the information available to her, including expert opinions, her own observations of Cabanilla during many conferences, and her other contact with Cabanilla by telephone and correspondence, we cannot say that counsel was constitutionally ineffective. See Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 58-59 , 106 S.Ct. 366, 370 , 88 L.Ed.2d 203 (1985); Strick *337 land v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 690-91 , 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2066 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984); Smith v. Stewart, 140 F.3d 1263, 1268 (9th Cir.1998); Babbitt v. Calderon, 151 F.3d 1170, 1174 (9th Cir.1998); Hendricks v. Calderon, 70 F.3d 1032, 1038-39 (9th Cir.1995); see also St. Pierre v. Walls, 297 F.3d 617, 630 (7th Cir.2002). Moreover, we cannot overlook the fact that,…