Downing

MEMORANDUM ***

Curtis L. Downing appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we affirm.

We review de novo a district court’s denial of a petition for habeas corpus brought by a state prisoner. Jackson v. Giurbino, 364 F.3d 1002, 1005 (9th Cir.2004).

*780 Downing first argues that he had “an irreconcilable conflict” with his counsel. He alleges that his counsel did not adequately prepare him for trial and did not conduct a sufficiently thorough investigation in this case. He complained to both the trial judge and the State Bar. The trial court held a hearing to address Downing’s concerns and found that the lawyers’ investigation was not deficient. Even now, although Downing continues to allege that counsel had an irreconcilable conflict, he fails to point to any mistakes made by his lawyers at trial. The record does not support a finding that counsels’ performance “fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.” Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).

The Nevada Supreme Court ruled that a number of Downing’s claims were procedurally defaulted by…