Fruichantie

MEMORANDUM **

Gerald Fruichantie appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 *810 habeas petition on the ground that both claims were procedurally defaulted. We affirm.

Fruichantie has not shown that “a constitutional violation has probably resulted in the conviction of one who is actually innocent” such that his procedural defaults are excused. Sehlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 327 , 115 S.Ct. 851 , 130 L.Ed.2d 808 (1995) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Fruichantie’s mental condition, and Dr. Shannon’s report, were presented to the trial court before it found him guilty except for insanity. Even if the report is “new reliable evidence ... that was not presented at trial,” Sehlup, 513 U.S. at 324 , the report does not demonstrate that “it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have convicted him” in light of this evidence. Id. at 327 . Fruichantie admitted to investigators that he intentionally started a fire in his apartment that was in a multi-unit building, and a tape of that admission was played at trial. Further, Dr. Shannon’s report is not inconsistent with the intent required for conviction of first degree arson.

Nor has…