Does Martinez v. Ryan excuse a procedural default in Federal Habeas Corpus proceedings?

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 1.) Does Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1 (2012) excuse a procedural default in a Federal Habeas Corpus proceeding where Post Conviction relief Counsel defaulted a claim in the initial Post Conviction proceeding that Guilty Plea Counsel was ineffective for misadvising Petitioner he faced 25 years to life imprisonment if he proceeded to trial, where Petitioner did not face a life sentence if convicted by a jury? 2.) If so, did the Lower Court commit error in finding that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying Petitioner's Motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6)? 3.) Did the Lower Court commit error in finding that Petitioner did not make a substantial showing of the denial of a : Constitutional right to obtain a Certificate of Appealability (COA) on ineffective assistance of counsel claim?