
    NHUT THANH VO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Anthony HEDGPETH, Warden, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 10-55967.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 4, 2013.
    
    Filed March 7, 2013.
    Tracy Dressner, Esquire, Attorney at Law, La Crescenta, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Nhut Thanh Vo, Delano, CA, pro se.
    David Delgado-Rucci, Esquire, Michael Peter Pulos, Deputy Attorney General, Office of the California Attorney General, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: HAWKINS, THOMAS, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Nhut Thanh Vo (“Vo”) appeals the denial of his habeas petition challenging his state court conviction of murder, attempted murder, assault with a semiautomatic firearm and street terrorism for the benefit of a criminal gang. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.

Vo argues he received ineffective assistance of counsel when his trial counsel failed to object to specific gang expert testimony. We look to the last reasoned state court decision, here from the California Court of Appeal, in determining whether relief should be granted. Ylst v. Nunnemaker, 501 U.S. 797, 806, 111 S.Ct. 2590, 115 L.Ed.2d 706 (1991).

Applying Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), the California Court of Appeal concluded that, although Vo’s lawyer should have objected to the testimony, he was not prejudiced thereby. In re Vo, No. G035920, 2006 WL 1793713, at *4 (Cal.Ct.App. June 30, 2006). Considering the strength of the overall case against Vo, and the peripheral nature of the gang expert testimony, we cannot say that this determination was an unreasonable application of federal law. Harrington v. Richter,-U.S.-, 131 S.Ct. 770, 786, 178 L.Ed.2d 624 (2011); 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1).

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