doctrine bars a habeas petitioner from raising a claim in a habeas petition that already has been considered on direct appeal. State v. Haberstroh, 119 Nev. 173, 69 P.3d 676, 686 (2003). In so holding, the court explained that, “[t]he law of a first appeal is the law of the case in all later appeals in which the facts are substantially the same, and that law cannot be avoided by more detailed and precisely focused argument made after reflecting upon previous proceedings.” Id. As an initial matter, we do not consider Cranford’s argument that his inability to access Nevada legal materials prevented him from attacking his 1983 convictions, as Cranford failed to raise this claim, or mention his 1983 convictions, in his complaint. See Miller v. King, 449 F.3d 1149, 1150 n. 1 (11th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>). The magistrate did not cite to any legal
holding that a party may not raise an issue for the first time on appeal holding that we could not review an aliens colorable due process claim that an ij was not impartial because the alien raised the claim for the first time on appeal holding that court will not consider issue raised for first time on appeal holding that because a claim was never raised in the district court this court would not consider it for the first time on appeal holding that because the pro se plaintiff failed to raise a claim under the rehabilitation act we would not consider this claim for the first time on appeal