
    Ernest Lee VADEN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. D.L. RUNNELS, Warden; Attorney General of the State of California, Respondents-Appellees.
    No. 10-15029.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted Jan. 10, 2011.
    Filed April 5, 2011.
    Stephanie Marie Adraktas, Law Office of Stephanie Adraktas, Berkeley, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.
    Ross Moody, Peggy S. Ruffra, Esquire, Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Respondents-Ap-pellees.
    Before: HUG; SCHROEDER, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
   MEMORANDUM

Petitioner-Appellant Ernest Lee Vaden (Vaden) challenges the district court’s denial of his federal habeas petition. Vaden asserted a claim based on ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). Additionally, Vaden raised an uncertified issue concerning the trial judge’s failure to appoint substitute counsel to present Vaden’s claim that his trial counsel was ineffective.

1. We agree with the district court that the state court did not unreasonably apply Strickland. “[A] defendant claiming ineffective counsel must show that counsel’s actions were not supported by a reasonable strategy and that the error was prejudicial.” Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500, 505, 123 S.Ct. 1690, 155 L.Ed.2d 714 (2003). The state court did not unreasonably apply Strickland, because as it observed, the medical records were not especially probative regarding Vaden’s intoxication defense. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689, 104 S.Ct. 2052.

2. The district court was correct in denying habeas relief for Vaden’s claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to call an expert witness to support his claim of intoxication. Assuming, without deciding, that counsel’s performance was deficient, Vaden failed to establish prejudice, ie., “a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694,104 S.Ct. 2052. As the magistrate judge noted, Vaden did not provide a declaration from any expert to support his claim that Activan increased his intoxication. This lack of supporting documentation precludes a finding of prejudice. See Wildman v. Johnson, 261 F.3d 832, 839 (9th Cir.2001).

3. We do not address Vaden’s uncerti-fied claim, because he failed to “ma[k]e a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right” to warrant issuance of a certificate of appealability. Rhoades v. Henry, 598 F.3d 511, 518 (9th Cir.2010) (citation omitted).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     