Rasmussen

MEMORANDUM

Petitioner Guy Rasmussen appeals the district court’s dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . We affirm. Because the parties are familiar with the facts and procedural *502 history of this case, we will not recount it here.

I

The district court correctly dismissed claims eight and eleven of Rasmussen’s petition for habeas corpus because Rasmussen did not fairly present them to the Washington Court of Appeals and they are now procedurally barred. See Casey v. Moore, 386 F.3d 896, 920-21 (9th Cir.2004). Rasmussen’s personal restraint petition in the Washington Court of Appeals did not place the state courts on notice that he was raising claim eight as a federal constitutional claim. See Shumway v. Payne, 223 F.3d 982, 987 (9th Cir.2000) (a “naked reference to due process” is insufficient to fairly present a federal constitutional claim to state courts) (internal quotation marks omitted). Rasmussen’s concession that he failed to present claim eleven as a federal constitutional claim in the Washington Court of Appeals is dispositive as to that allegation. See Casey, 386 F.3d at 918 (“Because we conclude that Casey raised his federal…