Case Name: Dwayne Antoine HAMPTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Mike KNOWLES, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-12-08
Citations: 212 F. App'x 618
Docket Number: No. 04-56370
Parties: Dwayne Antoine HAMPTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Mike KNOWLES, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 212
Pages: 618–618

Head Matter:
Dwayne Antoine HAMPTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Mike KNOWLES, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 04-56370.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 4, 2006.
Filed Dec. 8, 2006.
Dwayne Antoine Hampton, Represa, CA, pro se.
Attorney General for the State of California, Kyle N. Shaffer, AGCA—Office of the California Attorney General (San Diego), San Diego, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
California state prisoner Dwayne Antoine Hampton appeals the district court's denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. He asserts that his right to effective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment and his due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment were violated in the California state courts.
We conclude that the state court's application of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), to the ineffective assistance of counsel challenges was objectively reasonable. See Woodford v. Visciotti, 537 U.S. 19, 24-25, 123 S.Ct. 357, 154 L.Ed.2d 279 (2002); Morrison v. Estelle, 981 F.2d 425, 427 (9th Cir.1992). Even assuming Hampton's counsel was ineffective, Hampton has been unable to show, as he must, "that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense." Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052.
The state court's determination that Hampton's due process rights were not violated was an objectively reasonable application of clearly established federal law. See Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510, 520-21, 123 S.Ct. 2527, 156 L.Ed.2d 471 (2003). And even if a due process violation occurred, any error that may have occurred did not have a "substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining" the outcome. Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 637, 113 S.Ct. 1710, 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993).
Thus, because the state court did not apply federal law in an objectively unreasonable manner, the district court properly denied Hampton's petition.
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.