Wright (Robert) v. State

same claims regarding his habitual criminal adjudication in a motion to modify sentence filed on December 19, 2012, which had it been filed as a post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus, would have been timely. Therefore, appellant failed to demonstrate cause for the delay. Appellant also claimed that he could overcome the procedural bar because he was actually innocent of the habitual criminal adjudication because the State failed to provide certified copies of his prior convictions. Appellant did not demonstrate actual innocence because he failed to show that "'it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have convicted him in light of, . . new evidence." Calderon v. Thompson, 523 U.S. 538, 559 (1998) (quoting Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 327 (1995)); see also Pellegrini v. State, 117 Nev. 860, 887, 34 P.3d 519, 537 (2001); Mazzan v. Warden, 112 Nev. 838, 842, 921 P.2d 920, 922 (1996). We therefore conclude that the district court did not err in denying appellant's petition as procedurally barred, and we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

/ Lee-A Hardesty

Douglas \ J.

ch9A.7 , J. Cherry

SUPREME COURT

OF

NEVADA (0) 1947A e cc: Hon. Carolyn Ellsworth, District Judge

Robert Earl Wright

Attorney General/Carson City

Clark County District Attorney

Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT

OF

NEVADA (0) 194M e