Whether federal capital prisoners whose substantial claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel were defaulted by ineffective § 2255 counsel may seek review of such claims

QUESTION PRESENTED In Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1 (2012), and Trevino v. Thaler, 569 U.S. 418 (2013), this Court held that, for a state prisoner whose first opportunity to raise a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel is in an initial collateral-review proceeding, procedural default will not bar review of those claims in proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 when that default was the result of ineffective assistance of initial collateral-review counsel. Like the state prisoners in Martinez and Trevino, a federal capital prisoner generally cannot raise a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel on direct review; his first opportunity to raise such claims is on a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500, 508 (2003). To ensure that these claims are adequately developed and presented, federal capital prisoners are guaranteed counsel through postconviction proceedings. 18 U.S.C. § 3599. The question presented is: Whether and by what procedural mechanism federal capital prisoners who are in the analogous position of the state prisoners in Martinez and Trevino—i.e., whose substantial claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel were defaulted by ineffective § 2255 counsel—may seek review of such claims. @