Vignolo

MEMORANDUM **

Leonard Vignolo appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for habeas corpus, following his conviction for first degree murder in Nevada. We affirm.

I

Vignolo failed to exhaust his claim that his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation was violated by the state trial court’s grant of a motion in limine restricting his ability to cross-examine Steve Kaboli. His counseled brief to the Nevada Supreme Court gave every indication of relying on state evidentiary rules; neither mentioning a “constitutional right to confrontation,” Baldwin v. Reese, 541 U.S. 27 , 124 S.Ct. 1347, 1351 , 158 L.Ed.2d 64 (2004); Castillo v. McFadden, 370 F.3d 882, 886-87 (9th Cir.2004) (holding that general appeals to broad constitutional principles are insufficient to establish exhaustion), nor citing to Seim v. State, 95 Nev. 89 , 590 P.2d 1152 (1979) and Bushnell v. State, 95 Nev. 570 , 599 P.2d 1038 (1979), put the Nevada Supreme Court on notice that Vignolo was pursuing a federal constitutional claim. See Peterson v. Lampert, 319 F.3d 1153, 1158-59 (9th Cir.2003) (en banc).

II

Lack of direct evidence that Rachael Karr was dead, that her death was caused by the criminal agency…