Wilson

MEMORANDUM **

Damon Wilson appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for habeas corpus. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . We affirm.

We apply the strictures set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d) & (e) when we consider Wilson’s claims. That means that relief could only be granted if Wilson were able to show that the decisions of the state courts were either contrary to or an unreasonable application of federal law as declared by the Supreme Court; or based on an unreasonable determination of the facts. See id.; Price v. Vincent, 538 U.S. 634 , 123 S.Ct. 1848, 1852-53 , 155 L.Ed.2d 877 (2003); Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 73-75 , 123 S.Ct. 1166, 1173-75 , 155 L.Ed.2d 144 (2003); Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 412-13 , 120 S.Ct. 1495, 1523 , 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000).

(1) Wilson asserts that he was improperly denied a substitution of counsel because he demonstrated that his relationship with his trial counsel had broken down. No doubt the relationship was not ideal, but that is not the standard. See Morris v. Slappy, 461 U.S. 1, 13-14 , 103 S.Ct. 1610, 1617 , 75 L.Ed.2d 610 (1983). As it is, although Wilson did make a timely *175 motion, the state court reasonably determined that…