With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Petitioner’s remaining claims, however, are procedurally defaulted and are not cognizable on habeas review unless Petitioner can demonstrate cause excusing the default and actual prejudice resulting from it. Murray, 477 U.S. at 485, 106 S.Ct. 2639. As with his other defaulted claims, Petitioner generally raises the ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. However, as previously discussed, the ineffeetive-assis-tance-of-appellate-eounsel claim itself appears defaulted, as the claim was rejected by the Michigan Supreme Court for failure to meet the requirements of Mich. Ct. R. 6.508(D). Because the claims lack merit, however, I will address each claim without first resolving whether Petitioner has shown cause and prejudice excusing his procedural default. See Hudson, 351 F.3d at 216 (<HOLDING>); Cone, 243 F.3d at 971 (deciding claim on the

A: holding that when the last state court to consider the claim summarily denies relief we look to the last state court to address the claim to determine if it considered the claim procedurally defaulted
B: holding that court may address procedurally defaulted claim on the merits where it is more efficient to do so
C: holding that an argument not raised before the district court is procedurally defaulted
D: holding that the convention claim was procedurally defaulted
B.