context: "[W]here the State has provided an opportunity for full and fair litigation of a Fourth Amendment claim, a state prisoner may not be granted federal habe-as corpus relief on the ground that evidence obtained in an unconstitutional search or seizure was introduced at his trial." Despite having had every opportunity raise his Fourth Amendment claim at the trial and appellate level, as well as through his two CPL 440 motions, Petitioner only raises it for the first time here.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 568 F.2d 830, 840
citation_a.parenthetical: noting that petitioner had full and fair opportunity to raise claim in state court, on appeal, and through coram nobis procedure
citation_a.sentence: See Gates v. Henderson, 568 F.2d 830, 840 (2d Cir.1977) (noting that petitioner had full and fair opportunity to raise claim in state court, on appeal, and through coram nobis procedure); see also Graham v. Costello, 299 F.3d 129, 134 (2d Cir.2002) (“[0]nce it is established that a petitioner has had an opportunity to litigate his or her Fourth Amendment claim (whether or not he or she took advantage of the states procedure) ... the claim will never present a valid basis for federal habeas relief.”).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 299 F.3d 129, 134
citation_b.parenthetical: "[0]nce it is established that a petitioner has had an opportunity to litigate his or her Fourth Amendment claim (whether or not he or she took advantage of the states procedure
citation_b.sentence: See Gates v. Henderson, 568 F.2d 830, 840 (2d Cir.1977) (noting that petitioner had full and fair opportunity to raise claim in state court, on appeal, and through coram nobis procedure); see also Graham v. Costello, 299 F.3d 129, 134 (2d Cir.2002) (“[0]nce it is established that a petitioner has had an opportunity to litigate his or her Fourth Amendment claim (whether or not he or she took advantage of the states procedure) ... the claim will never present a valid basis for federal habeas relief.”).