
    Rene CAZARES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. W.J. SULLIVAN, et al., Respondents-Appellees.
    No. 09-16493.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 24, 2011.
    
    Filed June 6, 2011.
    Rene Cazares, Susanville, CA, pro se.
    Justain Riley, Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Respondents-Appellees.
    Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Rene Cazares appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 and we affirm.

Cazares contends that his trial counsel was ineffective. The California Court of Appeal’s determination that Cazares did not demonstrate that his attorney failed to investigate his case or that he was prejudiced by his attorney’s actions was not an unreasonable application of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); Harrington v. Richter, - U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 770, 785-87, 178 L.Ed.2d 624 (2011).

Cazares also contends that the trial court erroneously denied his motion to represent himself, made after jury selection had began. The California Court of Appeal’s determination that Cazares’ motion was untimely rested on a reasonable determination of the facts and was not contrary to Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975). See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); Marshall v. Taylor, 395 F.3d 1058, 1061-62 (9th Cir.2005).

Cazares’ motion for appointment of appellate counsel and accompanying requests are denied.

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