Osterhoff

MEMORANDUM **

Petitioner Patrick Osterhoff appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for federal habeas corpus relief. This court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253. Osterhoff argues that his counsel at trial provided ineffective assistance of counsel, and that the district court erred by refusing to expand the record to include three new exhibits. We agree with the district court that Osterhoff failed to exhaust some of his claims in state court, and that he was not entitled to have the record supplemented. We hold that Osterhoffs one exhausted claim fails on the merits. We therefore affirm the judgment of the district court.

We review the district court’s denial of habeas relief de novo. 28 U.S.C. § 2254 ; see also Beardslee v. Woodford, 358 F.3d 560, 568 (9th Cir.2004). A finding of procedural default is also reviewed de novo. Pirtle v. Morgan, 313 F.3d 1160, 1168 (9th Cir.2002).

We affirm the district court’s finding that Osterhoff failed to exhaust his jury waiver claims in state court, and that those claims are therefore procedurally defaulted. See Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 275 , 92 S.Ct. 509 , 30 L.Ed.2d 438 (1971). Although both the state…