Albert Celedone v. George Ingle, Warden

978 F.2d 714 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Albert CELEDONE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. George INGLE, Warden, et al., Respondents-Appellees. No. 92-15069. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Oct. 22, 1992. * Decided Oct. 27, 1992. Before SNEED, BEEZER and WIGGINS, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Albert Celedone, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition challenging his sentence for sexual assault. The district court determined that Celedone had not shown cause and prejudice for his procedural default. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253. We review de novo, Norris v. Risley, 878 F.2d 1178, 1180 (9th Cir.1989), and affirm. 3 Celedone contends that the district court erred in dismissing his section 2254 petition because the supplemental probation report included one paragraph describing Celedone's prison behavior since the time he was originally…