Case Name: Ira GREEN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. M. YARBOROUGH, Warden; Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-04-20
Citations: 129 F. App'x 365
Docket Number: No. 03-57245
Parties: Ira GREEN, Petitioner—Appellant, v. M. YARBOROUGH, Warden; Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Respondents—Appellees.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, PREGERSON, and TROTT, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 129
Pages: 365–366

Head Matter:
Ira GREEN, Petitioner—Appellant, v. M. YARBOROUGH, Warden; Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Respondents—Appellees.
No. 03-57245.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted April 4, 2005.
Decided April 20, 2005.
Sung B. Park, Esq., Van Nuys, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.
Ira Green, Corcoran, CA, pro se.
Pat Zaharopoulos, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Holley A. Hoffman, Marvin E. Mizell, DAG, Office of the California Attorney General, San Diego, CA, for Respondents-Appellees.
Before: SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, PREGERSON, and TROTT, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Ira Green petitions this court for habeas corpus relief from his convictions for three counts of rape, one count of committing a lewd act upon a child, one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm, and one count of possession of marijuana for sale. Green claims that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to sever the sexual charges from the drug and felon-in-possession charges and by failing to introduce evidence of the victim's prior allegation of sexual abuse (by a different perpetrator). Green's claims were rejected by the California Court of Appeal. Because that decision was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law, we affirm the district court's denial of Green's habeas petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). Specifically, the state court's "no prejudice" determination was based on appropriate assessment of the- case against Green, and its finding that Green's trial counsel had a strategic reason for limiting his investigation was not "objectively unreasonable." See Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 75, 123 S.Ct. 1166, 155 L.Ed.2d 144 (2003).
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.