Case Name: Robert Scott STRONG, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Joe DE CAMP, Superintendent, DRCI, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-02-24
Citations: 476 F. App'x 672
Docket Number: No. 11-35161
Parties: Robert Scott STRONG, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Joe DE CAMP, Superintendent, DRCI, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 476
Pages: 672–673

Head Matter:
Robert Scott STRONG, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Joe DE CAMP, Superintendent, DRCI, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 11-35161.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 21, 2012.
Filed Feb. 24, 2012.
Tonia Louise Moro, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FPDOR-Federal Public Defender’s Office, Medford, OR, for Petitioner-Appellant.
Rolf Christen Moan, Assistant Attorney General, AGOR-Office of the Oregon Attorney General, Salem, OR, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Former Oregon state prisoner Robert Strong appeals from the district court's judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
Strong contends that his trial attorney rendered ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to call his niece to testify regarding his character and reputation for sexual propriety. We affirm the district court's denial of relief because the record shows that the state court did not unreasonably apply Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), in concluding that Strong failed to demonstrate that his counsel performed deficiently. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); Harrington v. Richter, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 770, 785-87, 178 L.Ed.2d 624 (2011).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.