Davis

MEMORANDUM *

Davis appeals from the district court’s denial of his habeas corpus petition. Except as otherwise provided, the district court had jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 , and we have jurisdiction over the timely filed appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 . To qualify for habeas corpus, Davis must show that his state conviction “resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” Lockyer v. An-drade, 538 U.S. 63, 71 , 123 S.Ct. 1166 , 155 L.Ed.2d 144 (2003), quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1). Because Davis has not satisfied this stringent standard, he does not qualify for habeas relief.

The Nevada Supreme Court held that Davis procedurally defaulted on claims 7(J)-(X), 8, and 9 of his Second Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. See Nev. Stat. Rev. §§ 34.800(2) (laches) & 34.810(2) (abuse of writ). We have held that sections 34.800 and 34.810 constitute “independent and adequate state grounds,” which bar federal habeas review, Moran v. McDaniel, 80 F.3d 1261, 1269 (9th Cir.1996) (§ 34.800); Vang v. Nevada, 329 F.3d 1069, 1075 (9th…