/QUESTION # ONE: The sixth circuit is in direct conflict with marfcinez
V RYAN 566 U.S.413 and TREVINO V THALER 569 U.S.l. Is a petioner
Precluded -from, relying __o.n _MAr.tinez/ryaa -to-show-causa-for-his
procedurally defaulted IATC claim if ha filed an "initial* 1 petition
for post conviction relief, pro se, and did not appeal even thoug the
relevant IATC claim was first raised in a motion tor -leave to file a
new--trial motion , two years later and fully exhausted?

QUESTION # TWO: Did the Sixth circuit determination conflict with
SUCK V DAVIS, 137 S„Ct»759 (2017) when it skipped the four prongs of
martinez and although incorrectly, prematurely proceeded to decide
the exhaustion issue, and then applied an erroneous harmless error
revirew to it*s consideration for COA.

Question # THREE: Doss the sixth circiut erroneous determination that
Fetharolf failed to exhaust the IATC claim conflict with O'Sullivan
V Boerckel 526 U.S. 833 (1999) when it is clear that Fetherolf
raised his IATC claim with evidence, citation to constitutional
authority and federal authority and factual allegations in State
appellate courts.

Whether a petitioner is precluded from relying on Martinez/Ryan to overcome a procedurally defaulted IATC claim if he filed an 'initial' petition for post-conviction relief pro se and did not appeal, even though the relevant IATC claim was first raised in a motion for leave to file a new trial motion two years later and fully exhausted