Opinion ID: 3049369
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Constitutionality of Nevada Revised Statutes

Text: §§ 193.165, 200.010, and 200.030 Tanner asserts that he might have challenged the constitutionality of the Nevada statutes defining murder and malice, as well as the statute establishing an automatic sentence enhancement for use of a deadly weapon, but provided no argument in his briefs as to why these statutes might be unconstitutional. Consequently, we do not address this issue. Indep. Towers of Wash. v. Washington, 350 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir. 2003) (court will consider “only issues which are argued specifically and distinctly in a party’s opening brief”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). [10] Based on the foregoing analysis, we conclude that the district court correctly rejected Tanner’s claim that his constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel was violated.