USCA11 Case: 23-12972 Document: 30-1 Date Filed: 11/22/2024 Page: 1 of 3

[DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 23-12972 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

JOHN WILLIAM SNYDER, Petitioner-Appellant, versus FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondent-Appellee.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 2:22-cv-14273-RLR ____________________ USCA11 Case: 23-12972 Document: 30-1 Date Filed: 11/22/2024 Page: 2 of 3

2 Opinion of the Court 23-12972

Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, and JORDAN and LUCK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: John Snyder, a Florida prisoner, appeals pro se the dismissal in part and denial in part of his amended petition for a writ of ha- beas corpus. 28 U.S.C. § 2254. We granted a certificate of appeala- bility regarding whether Snyder exhausted his federal claim that in- sufficient evidence supports his state convictions for sexual battery and molestation of a child under 12 years of age. We affirm. Whether a claim has been exhausted in state court is a mixed question of law and fact that we review de novo. Vazquez v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 827 F.3d 964, 966 (11th Cir. 2016). Before filing a habeas petition, a petitioner must exhaust the state remedies avail- able for challenging his conviction either on direct appeal or collat- eral review. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b), (c); Castille v. Peoples, 489 U.S. 346, 350 (1989). Any federal claim must be “fairly presented” to the state courts so “that a reasonable reader would understand each claim’s particular legal basis and specific factual foundation.” McNair v. Campbell, 416 F.3d 1291, 1302 (11th Cir. 2005) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). And a petitioner “must make the state court aware that the claims asserted present federal constitutional issues.” Snowden v. Singletary, 135 F.3d 732, 735 (11th Cir. 1998). We have explained that a petitioner must first “afford the state courts a meaningful opportunity to consider allegations of le- gal error without interference from the federal judiciary.” McNair, USCA11 Case: 23-12972 Document: 30-1 Date Filed: 11/22/2024 Page: 3 of 3

23-12972 Opinion of the Court 3

416 F.3d at 1302 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). In McNair, we held that a petitioner who relied on state law and pro- vided a single citation to a federal precedent and a reference to con- stitutional amendments in the conclusion of his brief did not fairly present the federal issue to the state court. Id. at 1303. In Preston v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, we held that a petitioner failed to exhaust a federal claim of insufficient evidence by present- ing an analogous claim under Florida law without referencing a federal constitutional provision, a federal precedent, or the stand- ard under Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979). 785 F.3d 449, 456– 59 (11th Cir. 2015). The district court correctly ruled that Snyder failed to ex- haust his federal claim. Snyder’s state appellate brief raised a suffi- ciency claim that relied exclusively on Florida law and failed to mention the standard under Jackson or any federal precedents. See id. And his single reference to the due process clauses of the state and federal constitutions in the closing paragraph of his argument failed to put the state court on notice of the federal issue. See McNair, 416 F.3d at 1303. AFFIRMED.