Star

MEMORANDUM *

Richard Star appeals the district court’s ruling denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel in his second degree murder trial in Hawaii state court. Star’s claim is not procedurally barred, but the record does not support his ineffective assistance of counsel claim. We affirm.

We understand but disagree with the district court’s ruling that Star failed to exhaust his remedies in state court. 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (b)(1). Though oblique and fleeting, Star’s pleadings before the Hawaii Supreme Court: 1) make reference to his Sixth Amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel, 2) cite to state cases discussing federal ineffective assistance of counsel law, 3) and discuss prejudice, a requirement of federal law. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). Even though he barely meets the threshold for exhaustion, Start fairly presented his federal claim by citing to the “federal source of law” upon which his claim is based. See Baldwin v. Reese, — U.S.-,-, 124 S.Ct. 1347, 1351 , 158 L.Ed.2d 64 (2004).

We agree with the district court that Star’s…