barred absent a demonstration of good cause and actual prejudice. See MRS 34.726(1); NRS 34.810(1)(b); NRS 34.810(3).

Appellant claimed that he had good cause because the case was difficult and complex to understand and he only learned when he looked at his paperwork that his trial counsel made an improper argument during trial. Appellant's lack of legal knowledge is not good cause. See Phelps v. Director, Prisons, 104 Nev. 656, 660, 764 P.2d 1303, 1306 (1988).

Appellant's claim that his trial counsel made an improper argument during trial was reasonably available to be raised in a timely petition as appellant was present during trial and aware of the argument made by counsel at that time. See Hathaway v. State, 119 Nev. 248, 252, 71 P.3d 503, 506 (2003). Because appellant failed to demonstrate good cause, we conclude that the district court did not err in denying the petition as procedurally barred. Accordingly, we ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

&OA CUP J.

Pickering

cuAiust-546r J.

Parraguirre -N. „.... f)

Saitta

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) !947A e cc: Hon. Elissa F. Cadish, District Judge Justin D. Porter Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 1947A