Beltran

MEMORANDUM *

Petitioner Isaías Beltran appeals the district court’s denial of his habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 , claiming that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at his in absentia trial in state court as well as at the subsequent appeal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm the district court’s decision.

To merit habeas relief for his claim concerning his appellate counsel, Beltran must demonstrate that the state court’s *705 post-conviction adjudication of this claim “resulted in a decision that 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). The application of law must be “objectively unreasonable,” not just “incorrect or erroneous.” Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 75 , 123 S.Ct. 1166 , 155 L.Ed.2d 144 (2003). In light of this standard, we hold that it was reasonable for the state post-conviction court to find that, even if Beltran’s appellate counsel had appealed the propriety of the in absentia trial, the appeal would not have been successful. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694…