Gorham

MEMORANDUM *

Petitioner A. Kent Gorham (“Gorham”) challenges the District Court’s dismissal of his habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . He claims that he was denied effective assistance of counsel when his counsel failed to investigate and present available experts at his third rape and sexual abuse trial in Oregon state court. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253. We review the District Court’s denial of the habeas petition de novo. Clark v. Murphy, 331 F.3d 1062, 1067 (9th Cir.2003). For the reasons stated below, we AFFIRM.

Under § 2254(d)(1) of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AED-PA), Gorham’s habeas petition cannot be granted unless the Oregon Supreme Court’s adjudication of his claims resulted in a decision that “was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as deter *142 mined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 71 , 123 S.Ct. 1166 , 155 L.Ed.2d 144 (2003). In order to establish constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel, Gorham must show both that (1) his counsel’s performance was deficient, and (2) that the deficiency prejudiced…