McGriff

MEMORANDUM **

Appellant Kelly McGriff appeals the district court’s dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253, and we affirm.

We review de novo the district court’s denial of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Benn v. Lambert, 283 F.3d 1040, 1051 (9th Cir.2002). We may not grant relief unless the state court’s adjudication of McGriffs claims “was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1).

*406 McGriff raises an ineffective assistance of counsel claim based on trial counsel’s failure to investigate and prove at McGriffs sexual abuse trial that McGriff is the biological father of the victim. To prevail on this claim, McGriff must satisfy the two-part test announced in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).

McGriff does not meet the Strickland standard. He fails to show that counsel’s performance was objectively unreasonable. See id. Evidence that McGriff was the father of the four-year-old child he…