
    Christopher M. SCALES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jeffrey A. UTTECHT, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 12-35880.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 17, 2013.
    
    Filed Dec. 18, 2013.
    Christopher M. Scales, pro se.
    John Joseph Samson, Assistant Attorney General, Attorney General’s Office, Olympia, WA, for Respondent-Appellee.
    Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Washington state prisoner Christopher M. Scales appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition challenging his state conviction for unlawful delivery of a controlled substance. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review the denial of a section 2254 habeas petition de novo, and the denial of a request for an evidentiary hearing for abuse of discretion. See Wood v. Ryan, 693 F.3d 1104, 1112 (9th Cir.2012), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 134 S.Ct. 239, 187 L.Ed.2d 177 (2013). We affirm.

Scales contends that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to appear for trial. The record shows that prior to trial, Scales knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel under Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975). Thus, the state court’s rejection of Scales’s ineffective assistance claim was not contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); Harrington v. Richter, — U.S. —, 131 S.Ct. 770, 788, 178 L.Ed.2d 624 (2011).

Scales also argues that the district court abused its discretion by denying his requests for an evidentiary hearing and for supplementation of the record under Rule 5, 28 U.S.C. foil. § 2254. We disagree. Because Scales’s claim is governed by section 2254(d)(1), federal habeas review “ ‘is limited to the record that was before the state court that adjudicated the claim on the merits.’” Wood, 693 F.3d at 1122 (quoting Cullen v. Pinholster, — U.S. —, 131 S.Ct. 1388, 1398, 179 L.Ed.2d 557 (2011)).

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