Cram

MEMORANDUM **

Arizona state prisoner Barbara Ruth Cram appeals pro se the district court’s denial of her 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition challenging her conviction for aggravated assault. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2253. We review de novo, see Leavitt v. Arave, 371 F.3d 663, 668 (9th Cir.2004), and we affirm.

Cram contends that her trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to discover and offer an aerial photograph of the crime scene and by failing to call certain defense witnesses. We disagree. The determination that no prejudice resulted from not introducing an aerial photograph, which was taken eighteen days prior to the incident and had little probative value, was not an unreasonable application of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1). Likewise, the determination that no prejudice resulted from the failure to call certain defense witnesses, who would have testified as to their observation of the crime scene eleven days after the offense, was also not objectively unreasonable. See id.

To the extent Cram raises issues not encompassed within the certificate of appealability…