When a federal district court refuses to hear the due-process component of a state habeas claim because that claim was twice presented to the State and therefore suffers a state-relitigation bar, does the district court's refusal constitute error in light of this Court's holding in Cone v. Bell, 566 U.S. 449 (2009)?

QUESTION PRESENTED U.S. Const. Amend. XIV When a federal district court refuses to hear the due-process component of a state habeas claim because that claim was twice presented to the State and therefore suffers a state-relitigation bar, does the district court's refusal constitute error in light of this Court's holding in Cone v. Bell, 566 U.S. 449 (2009)? Does this Court's outlook change where the facts show the claim was not relitigated in the state? NOTE: This Gourt held in Gone v. Bell, that state relitigation bars offer no bar to federal review of state claims.