Ross
Ross v. Czerniak
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM *
Petitioner-Appellant Randal Craig Ross appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we affirm.
We review de novo the district court’s decision to deny Ross’s habeas petition. See Robinson v. Ignacio, 360 F.3d 1044, 1055 (9th Cir.2004). Under the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of *597 1996 (AEDPA), Pub.L. No. 104-182, 110 Stat. 1214 (1996), Ross’s petition can be granted only if the state court decision of his present claims either “was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law” or “was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d).
Ross contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel based on his trial counsel’s failure, upon learning that prosecution witness Sergeant Steele had falsified a police report about Ross’s crime, to (1) move for a continuance to investigate Steele’s grand jury testimony, (2) seek dismissal of the indictment against Ross, or (8) ask Steele during cross-examination whether he had lied to the grand jury.