
    Ansell Matria JORDAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Craig FARWELL; Nevada Attorney General; Director, Nevada Department of Corrections, Respondents-Appellees.
    No. 12-16975.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted Sept. 12, 2014.
    Sept. 30, 2014.
    Randolph Fiedler, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Ryan Norwood, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Las Vegas, NV, for Petitioner-Appellant.
    Daniel M. Roche, Deputy Assistant General Counsel, Office of the Nevada Attorney General, Carson City, NV, for Respondents-Appellees.
    Before: SCHROEDER and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges, and CURIEL, District Judge.
    
    
      
       The Honorable Gonzalo P. Curiel, United States District Judge for the Southern District of California, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Habeas petitioner Ansell Matria Jordan argues that he is entitled to have his procedural default excused under Martinez v. Ryan, — U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 1309, 182 L.Ed.2d 272 (2012). The underlying claim is that petitioner’s trial counsel was ineffective in failing to cross-examine principal witnesses about prior sexual assaults by others on the victim.

The district court, without applying Martinez, found that petitioner’s claims were procedurally defaulted. The district court also looked at the underlying claim, however, and found it to be without merit. We agree. Even assuming that petitioner could demonstrate cause and prejudice under Martinez to excuse his procedural default, his claim would nonetheless fail on the merits. The prior sexual assaults represent the type of evidence rendered inadmissable under Nevada’s rape shield law, Nev.Rev.Stat. § 50.090. Moreover, there is no reasonable probability that the admission of such evidence would have changed the result of petitioner’s trial, given the physical evidence and corroborating testimony.

The district court’s decision is therefore AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     