Mathews

MEMORANDUM *

Marcus W. Mathews appeals from the district court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.

The district court correctly held that the Idaho Supreme Court’s disposition of Mathews’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim was neither contrary to nor an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law as determined by the *642 Supreme Court. 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1). See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 689-91 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). The Idaho Supreme Court properly applied Strickland when it found Mathews’s trial counsel’s performance was not deficient. It was not unreasonable for that court to conclude trial counsel was competent, given that he: (1) investigated the issuance and execution of the search warrant; (2) reasonably concluded that probable cause existed for the search warrant based on his previous experience and direct contact with the issuing magistrate judge; (3) reasonably concluded that the date discrepancy on the search warrant was a clerical oversight not affecting the validity of the probable cause finding; and (4) reasonably decided against…