[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 12-14637

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:11-cv-23134-KMM

IVAN FERNANDEZ, 

 Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, 

 Respondent-Appellee.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(October 30, 2013)

Before DUBINA, WILSON and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Ivan Fernandez appeals the denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus

that challenged his conviction in a Florida court of second degree murder. See 28 

Case: 12-14637 Date Filed: 10/30/2013 Page: 1 of 3 
2

U.S.C. § 2254. We granted a certificate of appealability to decide whether 

Fernandez fairly presented to the district court a claim that his trial counsel was 

ineffective for failing to investigate and argue that Fernandez acted in self-defense. 

After a careful review of the record, we answer that question in the negative and 

affirm.

Fernandez failed to present in his petition the claim that trial counsel was 

ineffective for failing to argue about self-defense. Fernandez was required to 

present that claim in clear and simple language so that it could be easily identified 

and understood by the district court. See Smith v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Corr., 572 F.3d 

1327, 1352 (11th Cir. 2009). Fernandez alleged in his petition that the “trial court 

committed fundamental error by instructing the jury on the forcible felony 

exception to self-defense” and that “trial counsel did not present[] a complete 

defense,” but the district court understandably interpreted Fernandez’s allegations 

as presenting a claim that trial counsel had been ineffective for failing to object to 

the jury instruction. Fernandez “adopt[ed] . . . [and] incorporated by reference” his 

brief on direct appeal in the state courts, which addressed only the alleged error of 

the trial court in giving the instruction. Fernandez incorporated by reference into

his federal petition all the claims of ineffective assistance that he raised in his first 

state postconviction motion, see Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850, but that motion did not 

include the claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to argue about selfCase: 12-14637 Date Filed: 10/30/2013 Page: 2 of 3 
3

defense. Although that claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was raised in 

Fernandez’s second state postconviction motion, Fernandez did not even allude to 

his second motion in his federal petition. See Smith, 572 F.3d at 1352. Fernandez

included his claim of ineffective assistance in his objection to the report and 

recommendation, but we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion 

when it refused to consider a claim that Fernandez had never presented to the 

magistrate judge. See Williams v. McNeil, 557 F.3d 1287, 1292 (11th Cir. 2009)

(“[A] district court has discretion to decline to consider a party’s argument when 

that argument was not first presented to the magistrate judge.”).

We AFFIRM the denial of Fernandez’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. 

Case: 12-14637 Date Filed: 10/30/2013 Page: 3 of 3