Soraich

MEMORANDUM *

Luke Soraich appeals the magistrate judge’s order denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus with respect to his claims for ineffective assistance of trial counsel, deprivation of due process and ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. We review de novo, Davis v. Grigas, 443 F.3d 1155, 1158 (9th Cir.2006), and affirm. The parties are familiar with the facts and we do not repeat them here.

I

Soraich argues that the Montana Supreme Court’s decisions disposing of his first two claims were contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law as set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d); Medina v. Hornung, 372 F.3d 1120, 1124 (9th Cir.2004). We are unable to agree.

Soraich cites no U.S. Supreme Court authority in support of either claim. See Carey v. Musladin, 549 U.S. 70 , 127 S.Ct. 649, 653 , 166 L.Ed.2d 482 (2006) (holding that “clearly established federal law” refers to holdings of the U.S. Supreme Court as of the time of the relevant state court decision). With respect to his ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim, Soraich cites United States ex rel. Hampton v. Leibach, 347 F.3d 219 (7th…