Milne

MEMORANDUM **

Petitioner James Milne appeals the district court order denying his habeas petition. We affirm. Because the parties are familiar with the factual and procedural history of the case, we will not recount it here.

Milne seeks, inter alia, a federal evidentiary hearing on his ineffective assistance of counsel claims. Because Milne’s application for habeas relief was filed after the effective date of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), Pub.L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214 (1996), our review is governed by AEDPA. Woodford v. Garceau, 538 U.S. 202, 210 , 123 S.Ct. 1398 , 155 L.Ed.2d 363 (2003). Although Milne’s habeas petition is governed by the AEDPA, which limits a district court’s discretion to conduct evidentiary hearings, see 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (e)(2) (providing that petitioners who failed to develop the facts in state court may not obtain an evidentiary hearing in district court except in limited cir *71 cumstances), here we assess the availability of an evidentiary hearing under preAEDPA law because Milne exercised sufficient diligence in seeking to develop the factual basis of his claim in the state court proceedings. See Williams v.…