
    Troy David SMITH, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Geroge A. NEOTTI, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.
    No. 10-55759.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted Dec. 6, 2011.
    Filed Dec. 22, 2011.
    Arthur Henry Weed, Esquire, Santa Barbara, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.
    Sonya Roth, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
    Before: B. FLETCHER, SILVERMAN, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
   MEMORANDUM

Troy David Smith appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The district court granted a certificate of appealability on the question of “[wjhether habeas relief is warranted under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) with respect to petitioner’s claim that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to properly prepare a witness list and present an effective affirmative defense.” We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(a), and we affirm.

The California Court of Appeal’s determination that Smith’s trial counsel did not render ineffective assistance was not “contrary to, or ... an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). The standard for federal habeas relief is “difficult to meet” and “[sjurmounting Strickland’s high bar [to establish ineffective assistance] is never an easy task.” Harrington v. Richter, — U.S. —, —, —, 131 S.Ct. 770, 786, 788, 178 L.Ed.2d 624 (2011) (citations and quotation marks omitted). Here, Smith’s trial counsel properly prepared and filed a witness list. The trial judge excluded the testimony of Pia Holmes and Keith Hay-hurst for stated reasons unrelated to trial counsel’s performance, or any bias or dislike the trial judge may have harbored against him. Smith thus failed to establish that “his counsel provided deficient assistance and that there was prejudice as a result.” Harrington, 131 S.Ct. at 787.

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