Proctor

MEMORANDUM **

Nevada state prisoner James Edward Proctor appeals pro se the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for failure to exhaust. Proctor seeks to challenge his Nevada state convictions and sentence for burglary and being an ex-felon in possession of a firearm and sentence. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 . Reviewing de novo, see Miles v. Prunty, 187 F.3d 1104, 1105 (9th Cir.1999), we affirm.

Proctor contends that his constitutional rights were violated when the prosecutor and Proctor’s trial counsel allegedly tampered with witnesses. Proctor also claims that he was denied effective assistance of counsel.

Proctor’s state petition did not adequately describe the operative facts and federal legal theory underlying his habeas claims, so as to give the state courts a fair opportunity to consider them. Therefore, his claims are unexhausted. Kelly v. Small, 315 F.3d 1063, 1066 (9th Cir.2003) (as amended); Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365 , 115 S.Ct. 887 , 130 L.Ed.2d 865 (1995) (per curiam) (holding that to satisfy the exhaustion requirement of § 2254, a petitioner must fairly present federal claims to the state courts by identifying them…