Trotter

*619 MEMORANDUM *

Anthony Graham Trotter appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . We affirm.

Neither the California courts nor the district court erred in determining that Trotter’s counsel was not constitutionally ineffective when he neither objected to the California trial court’s answering of a jury question by refusing to further instruct on the meaning of “intent to kill,” nor asked for a reread of an intoxication instruction. See Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510, 520 , 123 S.Ct. 2527, 2534-35 , 156 L.Ed.2d 471 (2003) (standard for grant of habeas corpus relief); Woodford v. Visciotti, 537 U.S. 19, 25 , 123 S.Ct. 357, 360 , 154 L.Ed.2d 279 (2002) (per curiam) (proper use of ineffective assistance of counsel standard in habe-as corpus case); Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88 , 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2064 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984) (ineffective assistance of counsel standard); Duncan v. Omoski, 528 F.3d 1222, 1233-34 (9th Cir. 2008) (ineffective assistance of counsel standard); Edwards v. Lamarque, 475 F.3d 1121, 1125 (9th Cir.2007) (en banc) (standard for the grant of habeas corpus relief); see also People v. Cain,…