Dillingham

MEMORANDUM **

Defendant Michael Dillingham appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus. On de novo review, Beardslee v. Woodford, 358 F.3d 560, 568 (9th Cir.2004), we affirm.

Defendant pleaded no contest to three counts of sexually abusing minor boys and was sentenced to 200 months’ imprisonment. Defendant claims that he received ineffective assistance of counsel in violation of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), and that his trial counsel coerced him into pleading guilty in violation of Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 58-59, 106 S.Ct. 366 , 88 L.Ed.2d 203 (1985).

1. The state court’s factual determinations that Defendant’s trial counsel was experienced and fully competent and that counsel properly prepared for trial by putting two investigators to work on the matter three months before trial were not objectively unreasonable. See Sophanthavong v. Palmateer, 378 F.3d 859, 868 (9th Cir.2004) (“Under [the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996], ‘a decision adjudicated on the merits in a state court and based on a factual determination will not be overturned on factual…