Whether claims of ineffective assistance of post-conviction counsel could serve as cause to excuse the procedural default of a claim of trial counsel's ineffectiveness?

ESTIONS) PRESENTED‘ . _ ar a lu dea's1e in Con ht with the decigen sf an ey OMiTeh ee aa re | on dle Jame inpeltoct mate pre deaiesl rN eq west Rota tachha of ap fealaby lity se. Clerkin Sp dncent Albion SC4 908 F.3d 876 16-1967 (3d Ci, dole (abuses whether claims of ineflective. assis tones of post-coavicdal F elie ft Covase] tould Seve &5 Cause fo excuse te froceduru | ele tun of O Claim of tial counsel's ine tectreness ? | Basel up Sebsetupe opp, a es Os eFtent OPqiaA Gach, j udjeow yt issued by fhivd cceact ucpee: Arlyo Re S420, oe Fas (708 £34877) boa a Coavickd slo. eco delerben> tar Show a fedecs| es . ° ‘ that his conicten’ rests upon a Violutea of. Unclecd Sdile lorstrbehin ; Con he obten a tlt of haber s Cops ¢ . . . Wwhebel 6 Habeas dorous pertes preporecl bya poseane without fega{ assster ® be 5 Kilt lay Ova p and tot be feadl gorecou sly é / (uheller de Unled tutes cout ofa nper (5 ha Jo depor ba Yarn te acterled ond us ue , Court of judca ( frotezd ng 5 ja peters Cardbitale of apperl be Ihe lh ts |ech qhis court a Cecbioen fervacted ancl trcaded) 52 Cop nen D Comer, J) yard by Reach jack Keely Dank sled n gechint pdt by Seal ot Thane, F., Soule)“, eked by Stevsdeoel (Ling beg, D Is diSfeafng. heh He decison f Kinpwted feden | geski ia oui thet cle. Cn eh S ok / Qo; . beth pte he dened meenig ff fevieg bese an fl Same radde, 5 In Uhich 4 Unkd Sho Gud of Appeals decided fo (ule in fine of Ceclain mdindus (5 ¢ . ~\ holler He pro¢edual bar Was not adequake fo SugpordHe | Judgeenant 4 (Foy ve No, 912 W539) GLE dd B37, B38 Sct Bx, (1463) | net: USCS §2353Q)) 7 SO ,