Opinion ID: 3161541
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: standard of review

Text: We review a federal district court’s legal analysis of a § 2254 petition de novo, Frost v. Pryor, 749 F.3d 1212, 1223-24 (10th Cir. 2014), including its determination that 3 Mr. Griffin argues the State waived its exhaustion defense. We disagree. The State raised the defense in the district court, App. Vol. II at 77-78, and on appeal the State’s brief again references Mr. Griffin’s failure to present his due process claim to the state courts, Aplee. Br. at 8-9. We may rely on procedural default even when the State did not separately appeal an adverse procedural default determination, Romano v. Gibson, 239 F.3d 1156, 1169 (10th Cir. 2001), and we may affirm on any ground supported by the record, see United States v. Damato, 672 F.3d 832, 844 (10th Cir. 2012). -9- claims were exhausted in state court, see Allen v. Zavaras, 568 F.3d 1197, 1200 n.4 (10th Cir. 2009).