Easter

MEMORANDUM *

Easter appeals from the district court’s judgment dismissing his habeas petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 . We affirm.

Easter may not obtain relief on his ineffective assistance of counsel claims unless the state court’s decision was “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1). Here, the Washington Supreme Court not only required Easter to show that “counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness based on all of the circumstances and that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, there is a reasonable probability that the outcome of the trial would have been different,” see State v. McFarland, 127 Wash.2d 322 , 899 P.2d 1251, 1256-57 (1995) (en banc), citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), but also re *708 quired him to make the additional showing that he was “actually and substantially prejudiced by constitutional error.” The state court’s decision “was contrary to clearly established Supreme Court precedent because it applied ‘a…