Bolgren

MEMORANDUM **

Arthur F. Bolgren appeals pro se the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as procedurally barred because he did not raise his prosecutorial misconduct and jury instruction claims on direct appeal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . We review de novo, see Zichko v. Idaho, 247 F.3d 1015, 1019 (9th Cir.2001), and we affirm.

The Arizona Court of Appeals found Bolgren’s prosecutorial misconduct and jury instruction claims precluded under Ariz.Crim. P. 32.2 because Bolgren failed to raise them on direct appeal. Unless a petitioner can show cause and prejudice for his procedural default or a fundamental miscarriage of justice resulting from the alleged constitutional violation, a federal court is barred from reviewing a claim that the state court declined to address as a result of a prisoner’s failure to meet a state procedural requirement. See Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 729-30, 750 , 111 S.Ct. 2546 , 115 L.Ed.2d 640 (1991).

Bolgren contends that he should be excused from any procedural default arising from his appellate counsel’s failure to raise his claims in state court. Because Bolgren did not raise this claim in…