MEMORANDUM **

Sababu Badili Rountree appeals from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

Rountree contends that trial counsel was ineffective by: (1) failing to order testing of the victim’s clothing for gunshot residue; (2) failing to obtain an expert witness to testify regarding the mental state of the key eyewitness to the shooting; and (3) failing to investigate the possibility of introducing experimental evidence regarding how long the hood of Rountree’s car, found near the crime scene, would have stayed warm given weather conditions on the night of the crime. The record indicates that the state court’s rejection of these claims was not an unreasonable application of clearly established Supreme Court precedent. 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).

Rountree further contends that the trial court violated his due process rights by admitting propensity evidence. As Roun-tree concedes in his reply brief, this contention is foreclosed by Alberni v. McDaniel, 458 F.3d 860, 863-67 (9th Cir. 2006). See Mejia v. Garcia, 534 F.3d 1036, 1046 (9th Cir. 2008).

AFFIRMED.