
    Michael David WILSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Frank X. CHAVEZ and Attorney General for the State of California, Respondents-Appellees.
    No. 12-55744.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued Dec. 10, 2014.
    Submitted March 17, 2015.
    Filed March 23, 2015.
    Gary Paul Burcham, Burcham & Zug-man, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.
    Michael David Wilson, pro se.
    David Delgado-Rucci, Esquire, Kevin Vienna, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Office of the California Attorney General, San Diego, CA, for Respondents-Appellees.
    Before: PREGERSON, NOONAN, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
   MEMORANDUM

Michael David Wilson appeals the district court’s denial of his habeas corpus petition, in which he claimed he received an additional three years and four months’ imprisonment due to his public defender’s ineffective assistance. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review de novo a district court’s denial of a habeas petition, Stanley v. Cullen, 633 F.3d 852, 859 (9th Cir.2011), and we affirm.

Wilson alleged the prosecutor made him a plea offer of six years, which he instructed his attorney to accept immediately, but the offer expired before she did so. We conclude the California Court of Appeal’s application of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), was neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law because Wilson failed to establish sufficient prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697, 104 S.Ct. 2052. Nor was the state court’s decision an “unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented” because Wilson contradicted himself on the record, and failed to provide reasonably available supporting evidence. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2); Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 131 S.Ct. 770, 785-87, 178 L.Ed.2d 624 (2011). Lastly, Cullen v. Pinholster, — U.S. -, -, 131 S.Ct. 1388, 1398, 179 L.Ed.2d 557 (2011), bars federal courts from granting an evidentia-ry hearing where, as here, a claim was adjudicated on the merits in state court.

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