Kelly

MEMORANDUM

Andreas Kelly appeals the district court’s decision denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we affirm.

1. The district court properly concluded that Kelly failed to exhaust Claims 4, 6, and 7 of his habeas petition by not fairly presenting them to the California Supreme Court. We previously determined that these claims were exhausted and remanded them. See Kelly v. Small, 315 F.3d 1063, 1066-67 (9th Cir.2003) (overruled on other grounds by Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143 (9th Cir.2007)). However, the intervening Supreme Court decision of Baldwin v. Reese, 541 U.S. 27 , 124 S.Ct. 1347 , 158 L.Ed.2d 64 (2004), overruled the reasoning upon which we had relied. See Gonzalez v. Arizona, 677 F.3d 383 , 389-90 n. 4 (9th Cir.2012) (recognizing an exception to the law of the case doctrine where “intervening controlling authority makes reconsideration appropriate”) (quoting Jeffries v. Wood, 114 F.3d 1484, 1489 (9th Cir.1997) (en banc)). The district court properly dismissed these claims as unex-hausted because, although Kelly attached the lower court decision to his state court petition for review, California…