Whether a petitioner is precluded from relying on Martinez/Ryan to overcome a procedurally defaulted IATC claim if he filed an 'initial' petition for post-conviction relief pro se and did not appeal, even though the relevant IATC claim was first raised in a motion for leave to file a new trial motion two years later and fully exhausted

QUESTIONS FOR REVIEW | AQUESTION # ONE: The sixth circuit is in direct conflict with martinez V RYAN 566 U.S.413 and TREVINO V THALER 569 U.S.1. Is a petioner Presluded. from. relying on MArtinez/ryan. --procedurally defaulted IATC claim if ha filed an “initial” petition for post coaviction velief, pro se, and did not appeal even thoug the | relevant [ATC claim was first raised in a motion for leave to file a . new trial motion two years later and fully exhausted? : ; QUESTION # ‘TWO: Did the Sixth circuit determination conflict with BUCK ¥ DAVIS,137 $.Ct.759 (2017) when it skipped the four prongs of , martinez and although incorrectly, prematurely proceeded to decide the exhaustion issue, and then applied an erroneous harmless error reviéw to it's consideration for COA. ; QUESTION # THREE: Does the sixth circiut erroneous determination that — Fetherolf failed to exhaust the IATC claim conflict with O'Sullivan Vv Boerckel 526 U.S. 838 (1999) when it is clear that Fetherolf | taised nis IATG claim with evidence, citation to constitutional authority and federal authority and factual allegations in State appellate courts. : . | , ; si agen Ee | _ Be { ] ALL PARTIES APPEAR IN THE CAPTION OF THE COVER PAGE. | LIST OF ALL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND FEDERAL TRIAL, AND APPELLATE COURTS INCLUDING THIS COURT DIRECTLY RELATED TO THIS CASE | Fetherolf V Shoop 2022 U.S.App.Lexis 12443,6th cir court of Appeals denied certificate of appealability on 5-06-2022; Fetherolf V Warden 2021 U.S. District court Yendered Judgmeat denying certificate of Appealability on 11-16-2021; | State V Fetherolf 164 St.3d 1448 Ohio Supreme Court declined Jurisdiction on 9-28+2021; Fetherolf V Warden CCI 2021 U.S. Dist Lexis.182825 denied 60 (b) motion for relief from Judgment on 9-24-2021; CONTINULED ON NEXT PAGE ii BS Fetherolf V. Shoop 2021 U.S. App.Lexis 22759; Sixth circuit court of © 20. " Appeals. Judgment rendered July 30 2021. Rehearing denied. Fetherolf V Shoop 2021 U.S. App.Lexis 17952.3; Sixth Circuit court of Appeals. Judgment rendered June 15 2021. COA denied. . Fetherolf VY Shoop 141 Supreme Court 1711.3; United States Supreme court. Judgment rendered March 22 2021. Certiorari denied. State Ex Rel Fetherolf V Third district court of Appeals. 161 Ohio St.3d 1477; Judgment entered March 17 2021. Ohio Supreme court. Writ of prohibition dismissed. Fetherolf V Warden 2020 U.S. U.S. District ' court for the southern district of Ohio.3; Judgment rendered December 08 2020. Motion for relief from Judgment. (60(b)). Fetherolf V Warden Chilicothe Correctional Institution. 2020 U.S. App Lexis.35816; Sixth Circuit court of Appeals; Judgment rendered November 13 2020. Rehearing denied. Fetherolf V Warden Chilicothe Correctional Institution.3,U.5. district» court for the southern district of Ohios; Judgment rendered October 01 2020, denied (60(b)). ; Fetherolf V Warden Chillicothe Correctional Institution; ;Sixth curcyit ~ court of Appeals; Judgment rendered September 17 2020; denied COA. Fetherolf V Warden Chilicothe Correctional Institution :2020 U.S. Dist.Lexis.70787; U.S. court of Appeals southern district of Ohio; Judgment rendered April 22 2020; Dismissing Habeas Gorpus. | Fetherolf V Warden Chillicothe Correctional Institution. 2020 U.S. Dist.Lexis. 21315; U.S.Court.of Appeals for the Sopthern district of Ohio; Judgment rendered Febuary 7 2020; Magistrate recomend di | dismissal of Habeas corpus. State V Fetherolf 2020 Ohio Lexis 135; Ohio Supreme Court; Judgment rendered January 21:.2020; Appeal not accepted for review; Prior history 3; Third district court of Appeals case Number 14-19-23. Fetherolf V Shoop 2019 U.S. Dist.Lexis.172003; U.S. District court for the southern district of Ohio; Judgment rendered October 3 20193; °° _ Magistrate order denying motions to expand the record; discovery; «.. | and counsel. State V Fetherolf 151 Ohio St.3d 1529; Ohio Supreme Court; Judgment rendered Febuary 14 2018.denied reconsideration. jj State V Fetherolf 151