Cramer

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Armando Cramer appeals pro se the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition, which challenges his conviction and 34-years-to-life sentence for attempted murder and burglary. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (a). Reviewing de novo, Alvarado v. Hill, 252 F.3d 1066, 1068 (9th Cir.2001), we affirm.

Cramer contends that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance because coun *648 sel pursued a defense of voluntary intoxication, but did not investigate and call witnesses or otherwise put on evidence in support of that defense. However, Cram-er has not submitted evidence sufficient to overcome the presumption that counsel was acting within the bounds of reasonable professional conduct. See Murtishaw v. Woodford, 255 F.Sd 926, 939 (9th Cir.2001) (stating that the defendant “bears the heavy burden of proving that counsel’s assistance was neither reasonable nor the result of sound trial strategy”). Further, the statements of the witnesses identified by Cramer would not have been sufficient to convince a rational jury that Cramer lacked the ability form the requisite intent. See California v. Horton, 11…