Case Name: Alexander JONES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Mark NOOTH, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-10-06
Citations: 452 F. App'x 746
Docket Number: No. 11-35008
Parties: Alexander JONES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Mark NOOTH, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before: SILVERMAN, W. FLETCHER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 452
Pages: 746–747

Head Matter:
Alexander JONES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Mark NOOTH, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 11-35008.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 27, 2011.
Filed Oct. 6, 2011.
Thomas J. Hester, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FPDOR-Federal Public Defender’s Office, Portland, OR, for Petitioner-Appellant.
Kathleen Cegla, Assistant Attorney General, AGOR-Office of the Oregon Attorney General, Salem, OR, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before: SILVERMAN, W. FLETCHER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Oregon state prisoner Alexander Jones appeals from the district court's judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
Jones contends the district court erred in concluding that he procedurally defaulted his claim that his trial lawyer rendered ineffective assistance of counsel. Before the Oregon Supreme Court, however, Jones did not fairly present his claim that counsel failed to raise Jones's cognitive deficiencies to negate the specific intent element of the charged offenses, see Castillo v. McFadden, 399 F.3d 993, 998-1000 (9th Cir.2005), and Jones would now be barred from doing so, see Or.Rev.Stat. § 138.510(3); Smith v. Baldwin, 510 F.3d 1127, 1138-39 (9th Cir.2007). Jones does not contend that there was cause for and prejudice from his default, or that a fundamental miscarriage of justice will arise from the district court's failure to consider the merits of his claim. See Smith, 510 F.3d at 1139.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.