Carranza

MEMORANDUM *

Jaime G. Carranza appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition challenging his convictions for second-degree murder in violation of California Penal Code section 187 and assault with intent to commit murder in violation of California Penal Code section 217. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253, 1 and we affirm. 2 We review de novo a district court’s decision to deny a habeas petition. Leavitt v. Arave, 383 F.3d 809, 815 (9th Cir.2004). *201 Our review, however, is limited by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), which governs Carranza’s petition.

I

Carranza first argues that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel because his trial counsel failed to request jury instructions on justifiable homicide based on self-defense and on the lesser included offense of involuntary manslaughter. A successful ineffective assistance claim requires the defendant to demonstrate that his counsel’s deficient performance prejudiced the defense. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). In other words, there must be…