MEMORANDUM **

William M. Estey appeals the denial by the district court of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253, and affirm.

1. A federal court can only grant habe-as relief to a state prisoner if a state court decision “was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). An unreasonable decision is one that is “so lacking in justification” that it is “beyond any possibility for *313 fairminded disagreement.” White v. Woodall, — U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 1697, 1702, 188 L.Ed.2d 698 (2014) (quoting Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 131 S.Ct. 770, 786-87, 178 L.Ed.2d 624 (2011)).

2. Estey has not established that the decision of the Oregon Court of Appeals rejecting his double jeopardy claim was unreasonable. 1 Estey was aware from the outset that his sentence was 225 months, and could not legitimately have believed that any alleged ambiguity in the written judgment changed the oral sentence. The state court’s determination that the trial court did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause by amending the written judgment to clearly conform to the oral sentence was not unreasonable.

AFFIRMED.