Whether a state prisoner has exhausted his federal-law-based claims for purposes of federal habeas review under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 when he has presented the substance of the federal claim to the state courts, including by citing the relevant Supreme Court precedent and the federal constitutional right, even if the state courts may have declined to reach the merits due to a perceived procedural bar

QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW To be eligible for federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, a state prisoner must have exhausted the remedies available to him in state court. Jd. at § 2254(b). To exhaust federal-lawbased claims, they must be “fairly presented” in the state courts. Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 729-30, 750 (1991). Full and fair opportunity means invoking “one complete round” of the State’s established appellate review process. O ‘Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845 (1999)). “Section 2254(c) requires only that state prisoners give state courts a fair opportunity to act on their claims.” O'Sullivan at 844 (citing Castille v. Peoples, supra, at 351; Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 275-276 (1971). "[T]he crucial inquiry is whether the 'substance' of the petitioner's claim has been presented to the state courts in a manner sufficient to put the courts on notice of the federal constitutional claim." Prendergast v. Clements, 699 F.3d 1182, 1184 (10" Cir. 2012) (quoting Picard, 404 USS. at 278). Petitioner presented the substance of his federal-based speedy trial arguments in his direct appeal through the Ohio state courts. It is undisputed that he raised a federal-law-based speedy trial argument in the Ohio Supreme Court, including by citing this Court’s decision in Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972). In his intermediate appeal, Petitioner did not cite Barker. But the substance of his appellate argument demonstrated that he was making an argument based on Barker. Petitioner invoked the U.S. Constitutional right to a speedy trial in the heading of his argument and the first sentence of his argument, and the argument that followed aligned with the factors this Court set forth in the Barker case as relevant for a argument. The district court denied relief, finding that Petitioner failed to fully and fairly present the claims in the state courts. This was based on two legal findings. First, the district court held that invoking the federal right to a speedy trial in a heading and first sentence of an argument and an argument tracking the factors of Barker did not sufficiently present the claim in the intermediate court. Second, the district court held that, despite Petitioner clearly presenting a federal speedy trial argument to the Ohio Supreme Court, this, too, was not a fair presentation of the claim because the state’s high court may have found that it was procedurally barred. Accordingly, the broad question for review is whether it was debatable that Petitioner presented a federal claim in state court sufficient to preserve that claim for review under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. More specifically, the first question is whether the substance of the federal speedy trial claim raised in the state intermediate court of appeals was sufficiently presented through citing the U.S. Constitution and briefing the Barker factors. The second question is whether the act of clearly presenting a federal claim to a state’s highest court is somehow failing to give fair and adequate notice of that federal claim to the state court merely because a federal court sees that there may have been a procedural rule that applied to allow the state’s highest court not to reach the merits of that claim. i