Benoit

MEMORANDUM *

Benoit appeals from the district court’s order denying his petition for habeas corpus based on the alleged ineffectiveness of his counsel, Taub. The district court had jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241 and 2254. We have jurisdiction over his timely appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253. We review de novo. Benn v. Lambert, 283 F.3d 1040, 1051 (9th Cir.2002). We affirm.

The Oregon courts properly applied the correct governing legal principle from the Supreme Court’s decisions in that to prevail, Benoit must prove prejudice under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). To prove prejudice, Benoit had to demon *364 strate that there is a reasonable probability that, but for Taub’s alleged unprofessional errors, the results of the proceeding would have been different. Benoit has failed to prove Taub could have done something to change the District Attorney’s plea offer or that Benoit would not have accepted the District Attorney’s plea offer under other circumstances. See Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 59 , 106 S.Ct. 366 , 88 L.Ed.2d 203 (1985). Benoit admitted to the police that he had inappropriate sexual contact…