Nellum

MEMORANDUM **

Dashaun Nellum, a California state prisoner, appeals the district court’s order de *527 nying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We affirm. Because the parties are familiar with the facts and procedural history, we will not recount it here.

Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”), Mr. Nellum’s entitlement to federal habeas corpus relief “turns on showing that the state court’s resolution of his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland v. Washington, [ 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984)], ‘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.’ ” Rompilla v. Beard, 545 U.S. 874 , 380, 125 S.Ct. 2456 , 162 L.Ed.2d 360 (2005) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2254 ). “An ‘unreasonable application’ occurs when a state court ‘ “identifies the correct governing legal principle from [the Supreme Court’s] decisions but unreasonably applies that principle to the facts” of petitioner’s case.’ That is, ‘the state court’s decision must have been [not only] incorrect or erroneous [but] objectively…