Aurelias Marshall v. Adam Douglas, Warden

Petitioner properly presented thirteen claims of constitutional violations and sub-issues to each state court including the Michigan Supreme Court, the Federal District Court erroneously concluded that eleven of the thirteen claims were procedurally defaulted because of unexhaustion for the failure to present claims to the Michigan Supreme Court. (la) Did the Federal Court of Appeals review the district court's procedural default ruling de novo as required by U.S.C. § 2254, or Cvijetinovic v. Eberlin, 617 F.3d 833, 836 (6th Cir. 2010), Douglas v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 415, 422, 85 S.Ct. 1074, 13 L.Ed 2d 934 (1965) and was the state procedural rule adequate to stop habeas review? (lb) "A state rule must be clear, consistently applied and well established at the time of petitioner’s purported default.'* Ford v. Georgia, 498 U.S. 411, 423, 111 S.Ct. 850, 112 L.Ed 2d 935 (1991). Can this Honorable Supreme Court review the district court’s ruling?

Ihe federal district, court refused, to review the claim of actual innocence, stating that the claim was not cognizable because it was a freestanding claim that did not claim any other independant constitutional violation, are claims of 'newly discovered evidence and ineffective assistance of counsel’ claims independant claims? • (2a) Was the citing of Schulp v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 115 S.Ct. 851, 130 L.Ed. 2d 808 (1995) insufficient to claim an indepedant constitutional violation?

Could the claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, and newly discovered evidence, and actual innocence claims have served to excuse -vii-