DeYoung

MEMORANDUM **

Larry Dean DeYoung (“DeYoung”) appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 . We review de novo the district court’s denial, Collier v. Bayer, 408 F.3d 1279, 1281 (9th Cir.2005), and we affirm. DeYoung procedurally defaulted all of the challenged claims except the involuntary-waiver-of-counsel claim, which we reject on the merits.

Federal review of DeYoung’s other claims is barred because he failed to exhaust them. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (b)(1); Sandgathe v. Maass, 314 F.3d 371, 376 (9th Cir.2002). He did not “fairly and fully present” these claims to the Arizona Court of Appeals. Insyxiengmay v. Morgan, 403 F.3d 657, 668 (9th Cir.2005). DeYoung did not appeal the state court’s dismissal of these claims or assert them on direct appeal. He did not fairly present the claims in his fifth post-conviction petition when he argued that his counsel was ineffective for failing to raise them. Cf. Anderson v. Harless, 459 U.S. 4, 6 , 103 S.Ct. 276 , 74 L.Ed.2d 3 (1982) (explaining that for pur *445 poses of exhaustion “[i]t is not enough that ... a somewhat similar state-law claim was…