MEMORANDUM **

Oregon state prisoner Ronald Johnson appeals from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition challenging his jury-trial conviction for attempted aggravated murder. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

Johnson contends that his counsel on direct appeal was ineffective because he failed to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence at trial. After an independent review of the record, we determine that the Oregon courts’ determination that counsel was not ineffective was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established Supreme Court case law. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); see also Smith v. Murray, 477 U.S. 527, 536, 106 S.Ct. 2661, 91 L.Ed.2d 434 (1986) (“This process of winnowing out weaker arguments on appeal and focusing on those more likely to prevail, far from being evidence of incompetence, is the hallmark of effective appellate advocacy.”) (quotation marks omitted).

AFFIRMED.