Santiago Bernal Avina v. Janet Barbour, Superintendent

91 F.3d 150 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Santiago Bernal AVINA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Janet BARBOUR, Superintendent, Respondent-Appellee. No. 95-36267. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted July 9, 1996. * Decided July 15, 1996. Before: HUG, Chief Judge, SCHROEDER and POOLE, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Santiago Bernal Avina, a Washington state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. Avina contends that his conviction and sentence are invalid because of: (1) sentencing entrapment, (2) ineffective assistance of counsel, and (3) double jeopardy. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 . We review de novo, Calderon v. Prunty, 59 F.3d 1005, 1008 (9th Cir.1995), and affirm. 3 When a state prisoner has defaulted his federal claims in state court pursuant to an independent and adequate state procedural rule, federal habeas review is barred unless the prisoner can demonstrate…