
    Timothy O’KEEFE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Matthew CATE, Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 08-55339.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 30, 2010.
    
    Filed Sept. 02, 2010.
    Jerald Lee Brainin, Esquire, Los Ange-les, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.
    Timothy O’Keefe, pro se.
    Kevin Vienna, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Agca-Offiee of the California Attorney General, Atty. Gen. Cas, Esquire, San Diego, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
    
      Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, O’SCANNLAIN and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

O’Keefe’s habeas petition does not allege facts which, if true, would entitle him to habeas relief on either his Sixth or his Fourteenth Amendment claim. See Schriro v. Landrigan, 550 U.S. 465, 474, 127 S.Ct. 1933, 167 L.Ed.2d 836 (2007). The California state court record — including the transcripts, letters from O’Keefe, and two mental health evaluations — shows that O’Keefe actively participated in his defense, understood the consequences of his guilty plea, and expressed his sentencing preferences to the trial court. See Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402, 402, 80 S.Ct. 788, 4 L.Ed.2d 824 (1960) (per cu-riam). In light of the state court record, O’Keefe’s allegations of incompetence are insufficient to compel an evidentiary hearing and the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to hold one. See Landrigan, 550 U.S. at 474, 127 S.Ct. 1933 (“[I]f the record refutes the applicant’s factual allegations or otherwise precludes habeas relief, a district court is not required to hold an evidentiary hearing.”).

Similarly, the record shows that O’Keefe’s counsel negotiated a reasonable plea bargain and adequately investigated O’Keefe’s mental health. Therefore, O’Keefe has not shown that the state court’s rejection of his ineffective assistance claim was unreasonable. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); see also Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 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 Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     