Stewart

MEMORANDUM **

William James Mesa appeals the denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . Mesa claims that ineffective assistance of counsel tainted his Arizona state conviction for first-degree murder and child abuse. He alleges that his attorney’s failure to pursue or utilize potentially exculpatory medical information prejudiced his defense. The Arizona state court of appeals held that Mesa failed to establish ineffective assistance, and the district court denied habeas. We affirm.

As the parties are familiar with the facts of this case, we recite them only as necessary. We review the denial of Mesa’s § 2254 habeas petition de novo. See Alva-rodo v. Hill, 252 F.3d 1066, 1068 (9th Cir.2001).

The Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), 28 U.S.C. § 2241 et seq., narrowly limits federal ha-beas review of state court determinations. Section 2254(d) of the Act dictates that in order to obtain federal habeas relief, a petitioner must demonstrate that the state court’s adjudication of the merits resulted in a decision that was “contrary to” or “an unreasonable application of’ clearly established federal law, or was based on an…