Hindman

MEMORANDUM ***

Petitioner Stephen Hindman appeals from the district court’s denial óf his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus. We affirm.

Hindman contends that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel because his attorney, Wade Bettis, was impaired by an actual conflict of interest. Specifically, *573 Hindman contends that Bettis served the interests of Hindman’s parents, rather than of Hindman, when, after learning that the prosecutor had threatened to prosecute them for perjury if they testified contrary to their previous statements to the police, he advised them that they could invoke their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.

The Oregon post-conviction court ruled that this conduct was not an actual conflict of interest and that Hindman did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel. We may upset this determination only if it is “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). It was not.

Under the Sixth Amendment, a criminal defendant has the right to effective assistance of counsel, including…