McCormick

*755 MEMORANDUM *

Michael McCormick appeals the district court’s denial of his habeas corpus petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . We affirm.

Given the standards that we must follow, 1 we cannot hold that the Nevada courts improperly rejected McCormick’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim. 2 That is, assuming that counsels’ representation was constitutionally deficient, the state courts could reasonably determine that there was not a reasonable probability that absent counsels’ errors the result of the proceedings would have been different. See Hill, 474 U.S. at 58-59, 106 S.Ct. at 370; Strickland, 466 U.S. at 691-94, 104 S.Ct. at 2066-68. They could reasonably determine that counsels’ failure to make a Miranda 3 motion was not prejudicial because McCormick was not in custody when his statement was made, 4 and the facts did not show coercion. 5 Similarly, they could reasonably determine that counsels’ failure to make a motion to withdraw McCormick’s guilty plea was not prejudicial because on this record no valid basis for the proposed motion was shown. See Lambert v. Blodgett, 393 F.3d 943, 982 (9th Cir. 2004); United States v. Michlin, 34 F.3d 896, 900-01 (9th Cir.1994); see also…