Potts

MEMORANDUM **

Lawrence Potts appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition challenging his Nevada convictions and sentences for accessory to robbery and felony possession of a stolen vehicle. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 and affirm.

Petitioner argues that the district court abused its discretion by not staying the mixed petition to allow petitioner to exhaust his unexhausted claims. We review a district court’s grant or denial of a stay for an abuse of discretion. Rhines v. Weber, — U.S.-, 125 S.Ct. 1528, 1534-35 , 161 L.Ed.2d 440 (2005). The district court gave petitioner the opportunity to exercise his options under Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509 , 102 S.Ct. 1198 , 71 L.Ed.2d 379 (1982), and offered petitioner an administrative closure procedure that was the equivalent of a stay and abeyance. Petitioner, who was represented by counsel in the district court, filed a written declaration stating that he “voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently [chose] to abandon” his unexhausted claims and acknowledging that he would be barred from raising the claims in any federal proceedings. He thus gave up his right to pursue the unexhausted…