Vieyra

MEMORANDUM **

Hector Arrez Vieyra appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253, and we affirm.

We review de novo the district court’s denial of Vieyra’s petition. Custer v. Hill, 378 F.3d 968, 971 (9th Cir.2004). We will not reverse the district court unless the Oregon state courts’ adjudication of Vieyra’s claims:

28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d).

Vieyra’s argument that trial counsel misadvised him regarding the immigration consequences of his no contest pleas was not fairly presented to the state courts, see Correll v. Stewart, 137 F.3d 1404, 1411-12 (9th Cir.1998), and Vieyra is proeedurally barred from returning to state court and litigating it, see Or.Rev.Stat. § 138.550(3); Custer, 378 F.3d at 974 . We therefore may not consider the merits of this claim, see Cassett v. Stewart, 406 F.3d 614 , 621 n. 5 (9th Cir.2005), and we affirm the district court’s denial of Vieyra’s petition on this ground.

Vieyra also claims that his plea was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary because trial counsel failed to inform Vieyra that he could receive consecutive sentences. The Oregon Circuit Court…