22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T4a3,MEMORANDUM Rudi Apelt appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for habeas corpus. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 , 2258, and we affirm. It was not unreasonable for the state court to deny Apelt’s claim for ineffective assistance of counsel. Even assuming trial counsel provided ineffective assistance, Apelt has not shown that it is reasonably probable that, “but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). The state produced overwhelming evidence of Apelt’s culpability, as an accomplice, for first-degree murder. In particular, Anke Dorn’s testimony established Apelt knew about the plans to kill Cindy Monkman and “agreed” to them. She likewise established Apelt’s presence at the murder scene and his efforts to aid the murder’s commission. Finally, Apelt’s role in the attempted cover-up strongly implicates his role as an accomplice to Monkman’s murder. AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T4d5,

MEMORANDUM

Rudi Apelt appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for habeas corpus. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 , 2258, and we affirm.

It was not unreasonable for the state court to deny Apelt’s claim for ineffective assistance of counsel. Even assuming trial counsel provided ineffective assistance, Apelt has not shown that it is reasonably probable that, “but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).

The state produced overwhelming evidence of Apelt’s culpability, as an accomplice, for first-degree murder. In particular, Anke Dorn’s testimony established Apelt knew about the plans to kill Cindy Monkman and “agreed” to them. She likewise established Apelt’s presence at the murder scene and his efforts to aid the murder’s commission. Finally, Apelt’s role in the attempted cover-up strongly implicates his role as an accomplice to Monkman’s murder.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.