Jones

MEMORANDUM *

Jones appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus and its denial of his request for a Rhines stay and abeyance. See Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 277-78 , 125 *786 S.Ct. 1528 , 161 L.Ed.2d 440 (2005). The district court had jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (a), and we affirm.

Jones did not fairly present his habeas claims regarding his plea agreement to the Nevada state courts, a prerequisite to the federal court’s consideration of those claims. 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (b); Casey v. Moore, 386 F.3d 896, 915-16 (9th Cir.2004). Jones’ presentation of his claims in the first instance to the Nevada Supreme Court in a motion to remand did not constitute fair presentation. See Nev.Rev. Stat. § 34.738 (requiring claims for a post-conviction petition for writ of habeas corpus to be filed in the first instance with state trial court); Roettgen v. Copeland, 33 F.3d 36, 38 (9th Cir.1994) (“Submitting a new claim to the state’s highest court in a procedural context in which its merits will not be considered absent special circumstances does not constitute fair presentation” of the…