Blanton

MEMORANDUM **

Federal prisoner Bryan Blanton appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion challenging his conviction. We affirm.

Blanton claims he was denied the effective assistance of counsel because his attorney, Michael Meza, failed to interview co-defendant David Dorsey or call Dorsey as a witness at trial. We disagree. Two weeks before Blanton’s trial, Meza contacted Dorsey’s attorney in an attempt to obtain Dorsey’s testimony and was informed that Dorsey would not testify on Blanton’s behalf because Dorsey feared self-incrimination. When Dorsey finally left a voice-mail message for Meza indicating that he would be willing to testify, Blanton’s trial *238 had already commenced. Two other co-defendants, when pleading guilty, had inculpated Blanton in the robbery by accepting the prosecutor’s recitation of the facts. The strategic decision not to pursue the testimony of a co-defendant on these facts was reasonable. See United States v. Harden, 846 F.2d 1229, 1232 (9th Cir.1988). Meza’s representation of Blanton was “within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance.” Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 689 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674…