Wilkerson

MEMORANDUM *

The facts and procedural history of this case are familiar to the parties, and we do not repeat them here. James Wilkerson appeals the district court’s denial of his habeas corpus petition, arguing that he received ineffective assistance of counsel where his trial counsel neither objected to an expansion of the indictment time period for jury instruction, nor presented new evidence regarding the expanded time period. We review de novo a district court’s denial of habeas corpus. Beardslee v. Woodford, 358 F.3d 560, 568 (9th Cir.2004). We cannot issue the writ unless the state court’s decision is contrary to, or an objectively unreasonable application of clearly established Supreme Court precedent. See Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 71-72 , 123 S.Ct. 1166 , 155 L.Ed.2d 144 (2003); 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d).

The Supreme Court established a two-part test to determine whether a petitioner has received ineffective assistance of counsel. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). A petitioner must establish that counsel’s performance was deficient and that the deficient performance prejudiced the defendant. Id. The appropriate test…