Lambert

MEMORANDUM **

Carlos John Williams appeals the district court’s dismissal of his habeas petition. We affirm in part and reverse in part. Because the parties are familiar with the factual and procedural history of this case, we need not recount it here.

I

Williams contends that the district court erred in holding that five of his claims (specifically, claims 2, 3, 4, 8 and 9) were proeedurally defaulted through his failure to present them properly in Washington state courts. When discretionary state supreme court review is part of the normal appeals process, a petitioner must present all claims before that court and indicate their specifically federal nature in order to permit federal habeas review. O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845 , 119 S.Ct. 1728 , 144 L.Ed.2d 1 (1999); Reese v. Baldwin, 282 F.3d 1184, 1191 (9th Cir.2002). Williams argues that he exhausted the claims by including them in a pro se supplemental brief before the state court of appeals and explicitly referencing them in his petition for discretionary review before the state supreme court.

By itself, an argument raised in a pro se supplemental brief and incorporated into a petition for review before the…