Opinion
No. 05-16639.
Argued and Submitted November 13, 2006 San Francisco, California.
July 2, 2007.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Larry R. Hicks, District Judge, Presiding, D.C. No. CV-02-00105-LRH.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Nevada State Prisoner Robert T. Barfield appeals the denial of his section 2254 petition for collateral review. All of the grounds certified for appeal involve claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. In reviewing those claims and the record, we find that there is no reasonable probability that, but for the alleged errors of Barfield's counsel, the results of his trial or his direct appeal would have been different. We find no support for claims that Barfield's counsel performed outside "the wide range of reasonable professional assistance." Central to our analysis is the deference owed to the Nevada court system under AEDPA; none of the determinations made by the Nevada courts (which denied all of Barfield's claims for relief) were unreasonable.
See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694 (1984).
Id. at 689.
See Shiriro v. Landrigan, 550 U.S. ____ (2007) at ____ ("The question under AEDPA is not whether a federal court believes the state court's determination was incorrect, but whether that determination was unreasonable — a substantially higher threshold.")
We decline to expand the certificate of appealability because Barfield has not made the required showing.
See Stokes v. Schriro, 465 F.3d 397, 401 n. 5 (9th Cir. 2006).
AFFIRMED.