Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): to the District Court’s application of AEDPA to petitioner’s constitutional claims and ask whether that resolution was debatable amongst jurists of reason.” Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 336. The district court determined that petitioner procedurally defaulted the first three of the five claims listed above by failing to properly appeal them to the OCCA. Petitioner raised these claims for the first time in his state application for post-conviction relief. When the trial court denied the application, petitioner attempted to appeal it to the OCCA, but he failed to foll ural default through a showing of cause and prejudice, and the district court concluded that his showing of actual innocence was not sufficient. See Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 750, 111 S.Ct. 2546, 115 L.Ed.2d 640 (1991) (<HOLDING>); Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 321, 115 S.Ct. 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the convention claim was procedurally defaulted (B) holding that courts may only review claims for fundamental miscarriage of justice (C) holding that fundamental miscarriage of justice standard requires petitioner to make threshold showing of actual innocence (D) holding that an argument not raised before the district court is procedurally defaulted (E) holding that federal court cannot review claim procedurally defaulted in state court absent showing of either cause and prejudice or a fundamental miscarriage of justice
Output (English): holding that courts may only review claims for fundamental miscarriage of justice