Witek

MEMORANDUM **

Robert Johnson appeals the district court’s denial, on remand from this court, of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition, which challenges his convictions for pimping, pandering by encouraging, possession of a firearm by a felon, and drawing or exhibiting a firearm. Johnson contends that he was deprived of his right to effective representation of counsel due to his counsel’s concurrent representation of a potential witness in the case. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we affirm.

As a federal court reviewing a state court conviction on a petition for writ of habeas corpus, we may not grant relief unless the state adjudication of the claim: 1) “resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States”; or 2) “resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the state court proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1); see also Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510, 520 , 123 S.Ct. 2527 , 156 L.Ed.2d 471 (2003).

We have articulated two standards of review for ineffective…