MEMORANDUM **

Nevada state prisoner Antonio Coca appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2258, and we affirm.

Coca contends that the state court violated the legal principles articulated in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), because it considered facts other than the fact of his prior convictions when it sentenced him pursuant to Nevada’s habitual criminal statute, Nev.Rev.Stat. § 207.010. Coca’s arguments are squarely foreclosed by Tilcock v. Budge, 538 F.3d 1138, 1143-45 (9th Cir. 2008).

Coca further contends that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the state court’s alleged Apprendi error. Because Coca’s underlying Apprendi argument fails, Coca cannot meet his burden under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).

Coca’s letter, received in this court on February 26, 2010, is deemed filed and is denied as moot.

AFFIRMED.