With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". limit our review to the six issues outlined in the district court’s COA. See Murray, 145 F.3d at 1251. III. After his appeal was filed in this Court, indeed after briefing was complete and an oral argument date had been scheduled, Petitioner asked us to stay consideration of the case pending resolution of a motion he filed in state court on September 2, 2005. The state court motion seeks post-conviction relief on the ground that Maharaj’s rights under the Vienna Convention were violated when the arresting officers failed to inform him that he could contact the British consulate. Although the claim was previously presented in the state post-conviction proceedings, it was never considered on the merits because Maharaj failed to raise it on direct appeal. See Maharaj III, 778 So.2d at 959 (<HOLDING>). Rarely are we asked to stay appellate

A: holding that a caldwell claim is procedurally barred if it is not raised on direct appeal
B: holding that because maharaj did not raise the vienna convention claim on direct appeal florida law procedurally barred him from doing so in postconviction proceedings
C: holding that petitioner did not procedurally default his ineffective assistance of counsel claim by failing to raise it on direct appeal
D: holding that the convention claim was procedurally defaulted
B.