ineffective assistance of appellate counsel is reviewed according to the standard set out in Strickland. See Miller v. Keeney, 882 F.2d 1428, 1433-34 (9th Cir.1989). Petitioner must show that counsel’s appellate advocacy fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s deficient performance, Petitioner would have prevailed on appeal. See Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259, 285-86, 120 S.Ct. 746, 145 L.Ed.2d 756 (2000); see also Miller, 882 F.2d at 1434 n. 9 (citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688, 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052). “A failure to raise untenable issues on appeal does not fall below the Strickland standard.” Turner v. Calderon, 281 F.3d 851, 872 (9th Cir.2002); see also Wildman v. Johnson, 261 F.3d 832, 840 (9th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, appellate counsel does not have a
holding that appellate counsel could not be found to have rendered ineffective assistance for failing to raise issues that are without merit holding that counsel cannot be deemed ineffective for failing to raise a meritless claim holding that where trial counsel was not ineffective appellate counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise claim of ineffectiveness of trial counsel holding that petitioner did not procedurally default his ineffective assistance of counsel claim by failing to raise it on direct appeal holding no ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim for failure to raise as basis for appeal of conviction ineffective assistance of trial counsel where basis for the latter claim was inadequate