Lester

MEMORANDUM **

Gerald Lester, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court’s denial of his habeas petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . He contends his trial and appellate attorneys rendered constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel. We reject that contention and we affirm.

DISCUSSION

We review de novo the district court’s decision to deny Lester’s habeas petition. See Polk v. Sandoval, 503 F.3d 903, 909 (9th Cir.2007). Because Lester filed his petition after April 24, 1996, our review is governed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d). Under the AEDPA, we may not grant a habeas petition unless the state court’s decision was (1) “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States;” or (2) “based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d). The clearly established law applicable here is the test for ineffective assistance of counsel as set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674…