Heppard

MEMORANDUM *

David Heppard (“Heppard”) appeals the district court’s dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and improper denial of an evidentiary hearing. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2258 and we affirm.

We review de novo the district court’s decision to deny a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. See Alcala v. Woodford, 334 F.3d 862, 868 (9th Cir.2003). Findings of fact made by the district court are reviewed for clear error. Id. This is true “even when the district court’s findings do not rest on credibility determinations, but are based instead on physical or documentary evidence or inferences from other facts.” Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 574 , 105 S.Ct. 1504 , 84 L.Ed.2d 518 (1985).

The district court correctly concluded that Heppard could not show that his trial counsel provided incompetent representation under the standard outlined in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). Heppard’s petition alleges that his counsel was constitutionally ineffective under Strickland because his attorney had knowledge of alleged…