Shore

MEMORANDUM **

David Shore appeals the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging his 1995 convictions for rape and rape by foreign object, for which he was sentenced to a total term of 16 years. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 . We review de novo the district court’s decision to grant or deny a section 2254 habeas petition, while reviewing its factual findings for clear error, Melendez v. Pliler, 288 F.3d 1120, 1124 (9th Cir.2002), and we affirm.

Shore contends that his constitutional rights were violated at trial by numerous instances of prosecutorial misconduct during the closing arguments. However, the *458 district court found that these claims were procedurally barred because Shore failed to make any contemporaneous objections. See Vansickel v. White, 166 F.3d 953, 957 (9th Cir.1999) (noting that federal habeas review is barred where petitioner has defaulted his federal claim in state court pursuant to an adequate and independent state procedural rule).

On appeal, Shore challenges the finding of procedural default, alleging that the state court’s decision is interwoven with state and federal grounds, thus…