Case Name: Thomas R. WILLIAMS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Linda CLARK, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-12-01
Citations: 114 F. App'x 338
Docket Number: No. 03-56524; D.C. No. CV-99-08897-DDP
Parties: Thomas R. WILLIAMS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Linda CLARK, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before LEAVY, McKEOWN, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 114
Pages: 338–338

Head Matter:
Thomas R. WILLIAMS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Linda CLARK, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 03-56524.
D.C. No. CV-99-08897-DDP.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 15, 2004.
Decided Dec. 1, 2004.
Before LEAVY, McKEOWN, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Thomas R. Williams, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition challenging his sentence of 25-years-to-life. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review de novo the district court's denial of Williams' petition, Clark v. Murphy, 331 F.3d 1062, 1067 (9th Cir.2003), and we affirm.
Williams contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his defense counsel: (1) failed to provide written research to support a motion to strike Williams' prior strikes; (2) failed to effectively argue the motion in court; and (3) was subsequently suspended by the State Bar of California for his conduct while representing other clients. Even assuming deficient conduct by his defense counsel, we conclude that the California Court of Appeal's determination that Williams failed to show his defense was prejudiced by his counsel's performance was neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). Further, we note that defense counsel's subsequent disbarment did not render his representation of Williams per se ineffective. See United States v. Ross, 338 F.3d 1054, 1057 (9th Cir.2003) (per curiam).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.