22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T410,MEMORANDUM Jesse L. Youngblood appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition as second or successive. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 . We review de novo, see Wentzell v. Neven, 674 F.3d 1124, 1126 (9th Cir.2012), and we affirm. Youngblood contends that the district court should not have deemed his habeas petition second or successive under section 2244(b) because his first habeas petition was not decided on the merits but rather dismissed as barred by the statute of limitations. As Youngblood concedes, this argument is foreclosed by McNabb v. Yates, 576 F.3d 1028, 1030 (9th Cir.2009). We are bound by that decision. See Hart v. Massanari, 266 F.3d 1155, 1171 (9th Cir. 2001) (“Once a panel resolves an issue in a precedential opinion, the matter is deemed resolved, unless overruled by the court itself sitting en banc, or by the Supreme Court.”). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T43d,

MEMORANDUM

Jesse L. Youngblood appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition as second or successive. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 . We review de novo, see Wentzell v. Neven, 674 F.3d 1124, 1126 (9th Cir.2012), and we affirm.

Youngblood contends that the district court should not have deemed his habeas petition second or successive under section 2244(b) because his first habeas petition was not decided on the merits but rather dismissed as barred by the statute of limitations. As Youngblood concedes, this argument is foreclosed by McNabb v. Yates, 576 F.3d 1028, 1030 (9th Cir.2009). We are bound by that decision. See Hart v. Massanari, 266 F.3d 1155, 1171 (9th Cir. 2001) (“Once a panel resolves an issue in a precedential opinion, the matter is deemed resolved, unless overruled by the court itself sitting en banc, or by the Supreme Court.”).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.