Holterman

MEMORANDUM **

Daniel Bee Holterman appeals from the district court’s order denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . Mr. Holterman asserts that he was denied effective assistance of counsel because his trial and appellate attorneys neglected to preserve a transcript of an in camera hearing regarding his motion to compel disclosure of the identity of a confidential informant, and his appellate attorney failed to argue on his direct appeal that the trial court erred in denying the motion. We affirm the district court’s order.

Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we repeat them here only as is necessary to our disposition. The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”) applies to this petition since it was filed after April 24, 1996. Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 327 , 117 S.Ct. 2059 , 138 L.Ed.2d 481 (1997). Under AEDPA, we review a Section 2254 petition to determine whether the state court’s decision was contrary to or involved an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1); Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63 , 123 S.Ct. 1166, 1172 , 155 L.Ed.2d 144 (2003). A district court’s…