Crawford

MEMORANDUM **

Oregon prisoner Stephen Crawford appeals a judgment of the district court denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 . To obtain federal habeas relief, Crawford must demonstrate that the state court’s denial of his habeas claims was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly-established federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d). We review de novo a district court’s decision to deny federal habeas relief, Clark v. Murphy, 331 F.3d 1062, 1067 (9th Cir.2003), and we affirm.

Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we recite them only as necessary for this decision. Crawford contends he received ineffective assistance of counsel because, during trial, his defense attorney, Howard Binns: (i) was disbarred for misconduct in an unrelated civil proceeding, and (ii) failed to call three witnesses who would have provided favorable testimony *638 on Crawford’s behalf. The district court concluded that the state habeas court’s decision to deny Crawford’s state habeas petition was not contrary to, and did not involve an…