Spencer

MEMORANDUM

Clinton Spencer appeals from the district court’s judgment denying his habeas petition. Spencer argues that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to investigate two alleged alibi witnesses. We affirm the district court’s judgment.

We review a district court’s denial of a habeas petition de novo. Cheney v. Washington, 614 F.3d 987, 993 (9th Cir.2010). Generally, we grant substantial deference to a state court’s ruling that we review through a habeas petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-37, 339-40 , 123 S.Ct. 1029 , 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). However, because the state court relied on a procedural bar, and did not address the merits of Spencer’s claim, our review of the legal question presented is de novo. See Pirtle v. Morgan, 313 F.3d 1160, 1167 (9th Cir.2002). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 , 2253.

We have reviewed the record and conclude that Spencer’s counsel’s performance was not deficient. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). The inquiry is whether a reasonable lawyer would have made more of an effort to locate the alleged alibi…