where-a-capitally-sentenced-habeas-corpus-petitioner-relies-on-uncontradicted-strickland-mitigating-evidence-and-united-states-district-court-findings-that-he-is-mentally-retarded-to-establish-counsel's-deficient-investigation-and-strickland-prejudice-(i.e.,-exemption-from-execution),-can-a-federal-court-ignore-the-mitigating-evidence-under-the-guise-of-labeling-it-an-unexhausted-atkins-claim?

QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW 1. Where a capitally sentenced habeas corpus petitioner relies on uncontradicted Strickland! mitigating evidence and United States District Court findings that he is mentally retarded to establish counsel’s deficient investigation and Strickland prejudice (i.e., exemption from execution), can a federal court ignore the mitigating evidence under the guise of labeling it an unexhausted Atkins claim? 1 Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). ii