MEMORANDUM

Petitioner-Appellant Pablo Cebados appeals the dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The district court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 , we have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we affirm.

Assuming without deciding that Martinez v. Ryan, — U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 1309 , 182 L.Ed.2d 272 (2012), applies to state post-conviction proceedings in Nevada, see Trevino v. Thaler, — U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 1911 , 185 L.Ed.2d 1044 (2013), Cebados fails to establish that his post-conviction counsel rendered constitutionally ineffective assistance when he did not press, in the initial post-conviction proceedings, Ceballos’s claim that his trial lawyer was ineffective when she failed to resolve his case according to an alleged misdemeanor plea deal from the State. Ceballos’s post-conviction counsel, after reviewing the record and seeking his client’s input, reasonably determined that the trial ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim was meritless; apart from Ceballos’s assertions, there was no evidence that such a deal existed or that Ceballos had accepted it. Ceballos’s counsel also reasonably determined that Ceballos faced a possible perjury charge if an evidentiary hearing was held. See Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510, 521 , 123 S.Ct. 2527 , 156 L.Ed.2d 471 (2003) (“ ‘[Strategic choices made after thorough investigation of law and facts relevant to plausible options are virtually unchallengeable.’ ” (quoting Strickland, v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 690 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984))); Sexton v. Cozner, 679 F.3d 1150, 1157 (9th Cir.2012) (“Counsel is not necessarily ineffective for failing to raise even a nonfrivolous claim, so clearly we cannot hold counsel ineffective for failing to raise a claim that is meritless.” (citations omitted)). Ceballos thus fails to establish cause and prejudice to excuse his procedural default under Martinez .

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. . Ceballos's motion for judicial notice (ECF No. 17) is granted. Respondents-Appellees Brian Williams, et al.'s motion to strike (ECF No. 21) is denied.