
    William GILCHRIST, Petitioner-Appellant, v. A.A. LAMARQUE, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 08-15314.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 15, 2009.
    
    Filed Jan. 7, 2010.
    William Gilchrist, Delano, CA, pro se.
    Sean M. McCoy, Esquire, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
    Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, 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 William Gilchrist appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

Gilchrist contends that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the admission of certain evidence. The record reflects that Gilchrist has failed to show prejudice from the allegedly deficient performance or that the state court’s rejection of his ineffective assistance of counsel claim was an unreasonable application of clearly established United States Supreme Court precedent. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); see also Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).

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