Lewis

MEMORANDUM ***

After his conviction in state court for possession with the intent to sell both cocaine base and methamphetamine, the petitioner appealed to the California Court of Appeal, which affirmed his conviction. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a habeas *583 petition with the district court under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 , claiming that his trial counsel was ineffective and that, as a result, the state court erred in denying his motion for a new trial. The district court denied habeas relief.

We review the district court’s decision to deny habeas relief de novo and its findings of fact for clear error. Robinson v. Ignacio, 360 F.3d 1044, 1055 (9th Cir.2004). As this is a collateral review of a state court decision, and the petitioner filed for federal habeas relief after April 24, 1996, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 applies. Id. The relevant statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2254 , “dictates a highly deferential standard for evaluating state-court rulings, which demands that state-court decisions be given the benefit of the doubt.” Bell v. Cone, — U.S.-,-, 125 S.Ct. 847, 853 , 160 L.Ed.2d 881 (2005) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). The…