### Means v. State, 120 Nev. 1001, 1012, 103 P.3d 25, 33 (2004). We give

deference to the district court's factual findings if supported by substantial evidence and not clearly erroneous but review the court's application of
the law to those facts de novo. 

### Lader v. Warden, 121 Nev. 682, 686, 120 P.3d 1164, 1166 (2005).

First, appellant claimed that his trial counsel failed to investigate and interview witnesses. In particular, appellant claimed that his counsel failed to discover that a witness, R. Kempf, was on the payroll of a gang, that he allowed minors, drugs and guns into the bar and kept others out of the bar for payment, and that Kempf had lied about appellant being the initial aggressor. Appellant claimed that counsel did not interview M. Dobbs, a defense witness, who could have provided critical information to discredit Kempf. Appellant failed to demonstrate that his trial counsel's performance was deficient or that he was prejudiced. Trial counsel did seek to present impeachment evidence, and the district court ruled that specific instances elicited from other witnesses would not be allowed. At trial, Kempf was asked and denied that he allowed minors, drugs, or guns into the bar in exchange for something given in return. Despite the district court's ruling, Dobbs did testify that Kempf was known to allow minors, drugs, and guns into the bar and that Kempf was not a "good guy." Appellant failed to demonstrate that further investigation and interviews would have elicited admissible evidence that would have had a reasonable probability of altering the outcome at trial given the district court's ruling, the video of the incident, and the testimony of the witnesses at trial regarding the events preceding and following the shooting. Therefore, we conclude that the district court did not err in denying this claim.

SUPREME COURT

OF
NEVADA 2

(0) 1947A 

### eSecond, appellant claimed that his trial counsel failed to

effectively cross-examine Kempf about his reasons to fabricate and implicate appellant as the aggressor. Appellant claimed that it was possible that Kempf had received death threats. Appellant failed to demonstrate that his counsel's performance was deficient or that he was prejudiced. A defense witness, Dobbs, did testify that Kempf had told her he was receiving death threats. Appellant failed to demonstrate that asking Kempf about any threats would have had a reasonable probability of altering the outcome at trial given the video of the incident and the testimony of the witnesses at trial regarding events preceding and following the shooting. Therefore, we conclude that the district court did not err in denying this claim.

Third, appellant claimed that his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to hire expert witnesses to determine the angles of the shots to show that appellant was not the shooter, a ballistics expert to challenge the testimony that three guns were involved and that fingerprints cannot be tested for or found after a bullet is fired, and an expert on gunshot residue. In light of the video evidence and the testimony of the witnesses, appellant failed to demonstrate that his trial counsel's performance was deficient or that there was a reasonable probability of a different outcome had trial counsel hired and presented the above-mentioned experts. Therefore, we conclude that the district court did not err in denying this
claim. Fourth, appellant claimed that cumulative errors of trial counsel warranted relief. However, as appellant failed to demonstrate any deficiencies, this claim lacked merit.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3

(0) 1947APickering J.



### et-itit-st_9 - J. Parraguirre

, J. Saitta Next, appellant claimed that his appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to federalize his direct appeal claims. Appellant failed to demonstrate that his counsel's performance was deficient or that he was prejudiced. See Kirksey v. State, 112 Nev. 980, 998, 923 P.2d 1102, 1114 (1996). Therefore, we conclude that the district court did not err in denying this claim. Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

cc: Hon. David A. Hardy, District Judge Orlando Scott Martin, Jr. Attorney General/Carson City Washoe County District Attorney Washoe District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 4

(0) 1941A