Pablo CEBALLOS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Brian WILLIAMS; Nevada Attorney General, Respondents-Appellees, 529 F. App'x 855

MEMORANDUM Petitioner-Appellant Pablo Cebados appeals the dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The district court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, we have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm. Assuming without deciding that Martinez v. Ryan, — U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 1309, 182 L.Ed.2d 272 (2012), applies to state post-conviction proceedings in Nevada, see Trevino v.

Thaler, — U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 1911, 185 L.Ed.2d 1044 (2013), Cebados fails to establish that his post-conviction counsel rendered constitutionally ineffective assistance when he did not press, in the initial post-conviction proceedings, Ceballos’s claim that his trial lawyer was ineffective when she failed to resolve his case according to an alleged misdemeanor plea deal from the State.

Ceballos’s post-conviction counsel, after reviewing the record and seeking his client’s input, reasonably determined that the trial ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim was meritless; apart from Ceballos’s assertions, there was no evidence that such a deal existed or that Ceballos had accepted it. Ceballos’s counsel also reasonably determined that Ceballos faced a possible perjury charge if an evidentiary hearing was held. See Wiggins v.

Smith, 539 U.S. 510, 521, 123 S.Ct. 2527, 156 L.Ed.2d 471 (2003) (“ ‘[Strategic choices made after thorough investigation of law and facts relevant to plausible options are virtually unchallengeable.’ ” (quoting Strickland, v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 690, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984))); Sexton v. Cozner, 679 F.3d 1150, 1157 (9th Cir.2012) (“Counsel is not necessarily ineffective for failing to raise even a nonfrivolous claim, so clearly we cannot hold counsel ineffective for failing to raise a claim that is meritless.” (citations omitted)).

Ceballos thus fails to establish cause and prejudice to excuse his procedural default under Martinez. AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. . Ceballos's motion for judicial notice (ECF No. 17) is granted. Respondents-Appellees Brian Williams, et al.'s motion to strike (ECF No. 21) is denied.