Case Name: Fernando MOORE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of OREGON, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-03-02
Citations: 315 F. App'x 612
Docket Number: No. 08-35160
Parties: Fernando MOORE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of OREGON, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before: PAEZ and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and JENKINS , District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 315
Pages: 612–613

Head Matter:
Fernando MOORE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of OREGON, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 08-35160.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 2, 2009.
Filed March 2, 2009.
Anthony Bornstein, FPDOR-Federal Public Defender’s Office, Portland, OR, for Petitioner-Appellant.
Carolyn Alexander, Esquire, Assistant Attorney General, Oregon Department of Justice, Salem, OR, for Respondent-Ap-pellee.
Before: PAEZ and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and JENKINS , District Judge.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
The Honorable Bruce S. Jenkins, Senior United States District Judge for the District of Utah, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Appellant Fernardo Moore (Moore) appeals the district court's dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus seeking relief from his Oregon state conviction and 100-month sentence for sodomy.
Because Moore had no right to counsel at the post-conviction stage, see Smith v. Baldwin, 510 F.3d 1127, 1146-47 (9th Cir.2007) (en banc), any ineffectiveness of his post-conviction counsel could not be imputed to the state for the purpose of demonstrating an external cause for Moore's procedural default. See Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 754, 111 S.Ct. 2546, 115 L.Ed.2d 640 (1991). Therefore, Moore failed to establish that the cause for his procedural default is "something that cannot fairly be attributed to him ." Id. at 753, 111 S.Ct. 2546. Because Moore failed to demonstrate sufficient cause to excuse his procedural default, "we need not address whether he has shown prejudice with respect to [his] claim[s]." Smith, 510 F.3d at 1147.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.