context: We agree with the government and do not reach the merits of Reinke's claim because the state court applied an independent and adequate state procedural ground in ruling that the claim was procedurally defaulted.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 796 F.2d 1103, 1106
citation_a.parenthetical: stating that failure to comply with Arizona's contemporaneous objection rule bars litigation of the claim in federal courts absent a showing of cause and prejudice
citation_a.sentence: See Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 750, 111 S.Ct. 2546, 115 L.Ed.2d 640 (1991) (holding that federal review of claims is barred where those claims have been defaulted in state court pursuant to an independent and adequate state procedural rule unless the petitioner can demonstrate cause and prejudice); accord Bennett v. Mueller, 322 F.3d 573, 580 (9th Cir.2003); see also Sturgis v. Goldsmith, 796 F.2d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1986) (stating that failure to comply with Arizona’s contemporaneous objection rule bars litigation of the claim in federal courts absent a showing of cause and prejudice).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 501 U.S. 722, 750
citation_b.parenthetical: holding that federal review of claims is barred where those claims have been defaulted in state court pursuant to an independent and adequate state procedural rule unless the petitioner can demonstrate cause and prejudice
citation_b.sentence: See Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 750, 111 S.Ct. 2546, 115 L.Ed.2d 640 (1991) (holding that federal review of claims is barred where those claims have been defaulted in state court pursuant to an independent and adequate state procedural rule unless the petitioner can demonstrate cause and prejudice); accord Bennett v. Mueller, 322 F.3d 573, 580 (9th Cir.2003); see also Sturgis v. Goldsmith, 796 F.2d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1986) (stating that failure to comply with Arizona’s contemporaneous objection rule bars litigation of the claim in federal courts absent a showing of cause and prejudice).