Mark Tanner Marcham v. George Herman Attorney General of the State of Arizona

34 F.3d 1072 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Mark Tanner MARCHAM, Petitioner-Appellant, v. George HERMAN; Attorney General of the State of Arizona, Respondents-Appellees. No. 93-17101. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Aug. 23, 1994. * Decided Aug. 29, 1994. Before: WALLACE, Chief Judge, HUG and RYMER, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Arizona state prisoner Mark Tanner Marcham appeals pro se the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus. The district court determined that Marcham had procedurally defaulted his claims by not properly exhausting state court remedies. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Secs. 1291 , 2253. We review de novo the district court's decision on a petition for writ of habeas corpus. Adams v. Peterson, 968 F.2d 835, 843 (9th Cir.1992) (en banc), cert. denied, 113 S.Ct. 1818 (1993). We affirm. 3 Marcham contends that the district court erred by finding that…