Is the Ninth Circuit's decision contrary to this Court's decision in Y/st v Nunnemaker and Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 cases?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Martin Valdez appeals from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals published decision affirming the dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus as untimely. The questions presented are: (1) Is the Ninth Circuit’s decision contrary to this Court’s decision in Y/st v Nunnemaker because it failed to presume that the silent denial of his second state court petition was based on the same grounds as the first?; (2) Is the Ninth Circuit’s decision contrary to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 cases because it did not require the district court to review the relevant state court records before deciding to dismiss the petition as untimely?