Santos

*646 MEMORANDUM **

Ronald Santos appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . We affirm.

Santos asserts that the writ should issue because he was denied effective assistance of counsel and the Supreme Court of the State of Nevada unreasonably determined the contrary. To sustain his claim, he was required to prove that counsel’s performance “fell below an objective standard of reasonableness,” 1 and “that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.”

However, the writ may issue only if the determinations of the Nevada courts were “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States,” 3 or “resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts.” 4 On the record before us, Santos has not shown any of those defects in the Nevada courts’ decisions. Simply put, he has not shown that counsel was ineffective in her investigation of the case, 5 in her failure to pursue a voluntary intoxication defense, 6 in her…