Roe

MEMORANDUM **

Petitioner Hilario Torres appeals the district court’s denial of his habeas petition. He argues that he was denied effective assistance of counsel when his attorney waived lesser included offense and defense-related jury instructions that were inconsistent with Petitioner’s trial testimony that he was not at the scene of the crime. Because the facts are known to the parties, we do not recite them here. We affirm.

1. The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 governs Petitioner’s claim.

Petitioner filed his federal habeas petition after April 24, 1996. Therefore, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”) governs our review 1 of the state court’s determination that counsel’s actions were reasonable under Strickland v. Washington.

II. The AEDPA standard of review defeats Petitioner’s claim.

Assuming that Petitioner could show that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance at trial, Petitioner would then need to establish that the state court’s decision “was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of clearly established Fed *275 eral law” or “was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of…