Ehteshami

MEMORANDUM **

Petitioner Kourosh Eddie Ehteshami (“Ehteshami”) was convicted of possessing and furnishing methamphetamine and opium to minors in violation of California law. He now seeks habeas relief. The facts and the rest of the procedural history are familiar to the parties, and we do not repeat them here.

This court reviews the denial of a habeas petition de novo. Yee v. Duncan, 463 F.3d 893, 897 (9th Cir.2006). A petitioner in custody pursuant to a state court judgment is entitled to relief under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”) where the state court judgment “was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1). This is a “ ‘highly deferential standard for evaluating state-court rulings,’ ... which demands that state court decisions be given the benefit of the doubt.” Woodford v. Visciotti, 537 U.S. 19, 24 , 123 S.Ct. 357 , 154 L.Ed.2d 279 (2002) (quoting Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. *27 320 , 333 n. 7, 117 S.Ct. 2059 , 138 L.Ed.2d 481 (1997)). A petition may be granted under the “contrary to” clause where “the state…