Clarence Eugene Jones, A/K/A Asmar H. Saleem v. Manfred Maass, Superintendant

979 F.2d 855 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Clarence Eugene JONES, a/k/a Asmar H. Saleem, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Manfred MAASS, Superintendant, Respondent-Appellee. No. 92-35215. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Nov. 4, 1992. * Decided Nov. 17, 1992. Before SCHROEDER, FLETCHER and PREGERSON, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Clarence Ex Jones, an Oregon state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 and review the denial de novo. Norris v. Risley, 878 F.2d 1178, 1180 (9th Cir.1989). We affirm. 3 Jones contends that the district court erred in dismissing his habeas petition for failure to exhaust state remedies. A federal court must dismiss a habeas corpus petition if the petitioner has not exhausted state remedies. Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 515 (1982). A petitioner can satisfy the exhaustion requirement by fairly…