Mohsenzadeh

MEMORANDUM **

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Mohsenzadeh’s motion *335 for a new trial. On the current record, the representation provided by Mohsenzadeh’s trial counsel did not fall “below an objective standard of reasonableness.” Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). Trial counsel’s decision not to introduce evidence of Mohsenzadeh’s membership in Mujahedin-e-Khalq or to investigate or present possible evidence of selective prosecution was a reasonable tactical decision that we decline to second-guess. See United States v. Claiborne, 870 F.2d 1463, 1468 (9th Cir.1989). Nor did trial counsel err in failing to raise a selective prosecution claim as, based on the facts before us, it wouldn’t have succeeded. See United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 465 , 116 S.Ct. 1480 , 134 L.Ed.2d 687 (1996).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the *335 courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.