Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): in the murder. See Garafola, 2006 WL 963878, at *3-5. While the petitioner alleges that he is innocent of the murder of Edward Garofalo, as he did in the motion to withdraw his guilty plea, this conclusory allegation is insufficient. See Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 74, 97 S.Ct. 1621, 52 L.Ed.2d 136 (1977) (The petitioner’s “[s]olemn declarations in open court carry a strong presumption of verity [and] [t]he subsequent presentation of conclusory allegations unsupported by specifics is subject to summary dismissal.... ”). The facts in the record, including the ir.2009) (same); Ferguson v. Sec’y for the Dep’t of Corr., 580 F.3d 1183, 1218-20 (11th Cir. 2009) (same); Stanford v. Parker, 266 F.3d 442, 460-61 (6th Cir.2001) (same); Wedra v. Lefevre, 988 F.2d 334, 344 (2d Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>); Grey v. Hoke, 933 F.2d 117, 121 (2d Cir.1991) 
 Holding statements: (A) holding judicial recusal claim barred because of procedural default (B) holding that the novelty of a petitioners claim can constitute cause for a procedural default (C) holding that prosecutorial misconduct was harmless in the face of overwhelming evidence of guilt (D) holding prosecutorial misconduct claim barred by procedural default (E) holding that an ineffective assistance of counsel claim alleged to be cause for the procedural default of other claims is itself an independent claim subject to the procedural requirements of exhaustion
Output (English): holding that the novelty of a petitioners claim can constitute cause for a procedural default