With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Mitchell appeals from the district court’s order dismissing his petition for writ of habeas corpus. We have jurisdiction over this timely appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253. We affirm in part, reverse in part, vacate in part, and remand. The district court did not address the merits of Grounds 11(e) and 12(b) of Mitchell’s petition. We therefore vacate the district court’s order to the extent that it disposed of these grounds, and remand the petition for the district court’s initial consideration of these grounds. We affirm the district court’s dismissal of Ground 4 as proeedurally barred. The state court properly dismissed this ground pursuant to Nevada Revised Statute § 34.810(l)(b)(2). Vang v. Nevada, 329 F.3d 1069, 1073-74 (9th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>). Mitchell’s reliance on Pellegrini v. State,

A: holding that   15a1419a3 is an independent and adequate state ground for a state courts finding of procedural default
B: holding that rule 322a is an adequate and independent procedural bar
C: 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
D: holding that section 34810 is an adequate and independent state ground
D.