Arenas-Gonzales v. Hill

59 F. App'x 981
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided March 21, 2003·No. No. 02-35523; D.C. No. CV-99-00777-JE·Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

Ismael Arenas-Gonzales appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for habeas corpus. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253, and we affirm. Because the facts are known to the parties, we do not recite them here.

The Oregon Court of Appeals denied petitioner’s motion for leave to file a late notice of appeal from the post-conviction trial court, a decision that acts as a procedural bar under Oregon law.1 Accordingly, petitioner procedurally defaulted his substantive claims.2 He has made no showing of cause or prejudice for his default and has not alleged that a miscarriage of justice will result if this court does not consider his claims.3 Thus, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.

Footnotes

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Arenas-Gonzales v. Hill, 59 F. App'x 981 (9th Cir. 2003).

59 F. App'x 981 (Arenas-Gonzales v. Hill) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Coleman v. Thompson
501 U.S. 722 (Supreme Court, 1991)
Michael Reese v. George H. Baldwin
282 F.3d 1184 (Ninth Circuit, 2002)