
    David SHAW, Sr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Rosanne CAMPBELL; Attorney General of the State of California, Respondents-Appellees.
    No. 09-15405.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted April 14, 2010.
    Filed Aug. 19, 2010.
    Stephanie Marie Adraktas, Law Office of Stephanie Adraktas, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.
    Tami M. Krenzin, Deputy Attorney General, Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Respondents-Appellees.
    Before: SCHROEDER and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and MOODY, District Judge.
    
    
      
       The Honorable James Maxwell Moody, Senior United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

David Martin Shaw, Sr., a state prisoner, appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition challenging his conviction by a jury of kidnaping with intent to commit rape, forcible rape during the commission of a burglary, attempted murder, assault with intent to commit rape, second degree burglary, assault with force likely to cause great bodily injury and criminal threats. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review de novo the district court’s denial of a habeas petition. Gill v. Ayers, 342 F.3d 911, 917 (9th Cir.2003).

Shaw argues that he was denied effective assistance of counsel when his trial counsel failed to present impeachment evidence showing the victim’s testimony was not credible, that her perceptions of the incident were distorted by drug and alcohol intoxication, and that she engaged in “sex for drugs.”

We disagree. Shaw failed to show that his counsel’s alleged deficient performance caused prejudice. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). The overwhelming evidence at trial including the physical evidence of the victim’s injuries support the jury’s findings. The state court’s decision rejecting Shaw’s claim therefore was not “contrary to, or ... an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1).

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