With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". “suppressed” Brady materials. To the extent the prosecution is imputed with knowledge about the underlying information, it is too vague and attenuated to Butler’s investigation to be material. Accordingly, we conclude that there is no need to remand the Brady, analysis to the district court and we AFFIRM the district court’s denial of relief on this, basis. Cir.2001) (“[Ineffective assistance of habeas counsel cannot provide cause for a procedural default.”)). After the district court’s decision, the Supreme Court held that defendants convicted in Texas may attempt to demonstrate that the ineffectiveness of state ha-beas counsel is cause for failure to raise an IATC claim during state habeas proceedings. See Martinez v. Ryan, — U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 1309, 1318-19, 182 L.Ed.2d 272 (2012) (<HOLDING>); Trevino, 133 S.Ct. at 1915, 1921 (holding

A: holding that a federal court may excuse a state habeas petitioners procedural default if the petitioner can show cause for the failure to raise the claim and prejudice resulting from such failure
B: holding federal habeas proceeding was properly dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies when petitioners direct appeal from resentencing was still pending in state court at the time he sought habeas relief
C: holding habeas petitioners may show cause for such default in specific circumstances in states that require petitioners to raise iatc claims in initial state habeas proceedings rather than on direct appeal
D: holding that the federal role in reviewing an application for habeas corpus is limited to evaluating what occurred in the state or federal proceedings that actually led to the petitioners conviction what occurred in the petitioners collateral proceeding does not enter into the habeas proceeding
C.