
    Mario TORRES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Martin BITER, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 15-55111
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted November 9, 2016 Pasadena, California
    Filed December 08, 2016
    Fay Arfa, Esquire, Attorney, Fay Ara, A Law Corporation, Los Angeles, CA, Tara Kristine Hoveland, Attorney, South Lake Tahoe, GA, for Petitioner-Appellant
    James William Bilderback, II, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, David Elgin Madeo, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA
    Before: SCHROEDER and BYBEE, Circuit Judges, and SMITH, Chief District Judge.
    
      
       The Honorable William E. Smith, Chief United Státes District Judge for the District of Rhode Island, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Mario Torres, a California prisoner, appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. Torres was sentenced to a total term of sixteen years to life after being convicted by a jury of first degree robbery, in violation of Cal. Penal Code § 211, and possession of a firearm by a felon, in violation of Cal. Penal Code § 12021(a)(1).

On appeal, Torres contends that the district court erred in concluding that he did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel during his state court proceedings. The district court reached its decision after holding an evidentiary hearing.

In that hearing, Torres’s only evidence supporting his claim was his own testimony that he would have accepted a plea offer but for his counsel’s incorrect advice. The district court found Torres’s testimony not credible on the basis of a number of contradictory and illogical statements by Torres during that hearing. The district court’s findings were not clearly erroneous. The district court properly concluded that, even assuming inadequate performance by counsel, Torres failed to show prejudice from his counsel’s performance. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2062, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     