Did the decision in Martinez v Ryan 32 SCH 1309 require Claims fo be raised beyond the initial collateral proceeding fer exhaustion purposes iM Tennessee and other States with similar collateral proceecli Ng Frame woke

IF exhaustion is stil] regulrecl be yonel the iniHal collatera| proceeding ; did the petitioner satisfy the "Exhaustion Rule" by submitting his Claim to the TN Crim, Ch of App. by way of Mo Hon to Rehear 2

I. when the TecA Gave Teats' Motion-to Rehear Petition "Full consideration 7' clidl i+ Comt aS a merits adjudication under AEDPA and U.S, Supreme Court authority 2

"WL Has the Us Ss Supreme Court detined with precision whether a_procedural C allenge identical to eats' falls under FRC P- hule GOCb)(1) or €0 Ch) CE) 2%

V+ Has the US, Supreme Court definecl with -pcecksion he +ecm "extraordinary circumstances " contajn / b) (be) ?

Question not identified.