Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): Rule 5.2(C) of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals, which required him to attach to his brief a certified copy of the district court order being appealed. Because of this failure, the OCCA declined to accept jurisdiction over the merits of his appeal. See Duvall v. State, 869 P.2d 332, 333 (OMa.Crim.App.1994) (“The rule is clear and applicable. An Appellant must affirmatively attach with his brief a copy of the order of the district court. The district court order is the equivalent of the judgment and sentence, which is required to confirm jurisdiction on this Court.”) (citations omitted). The district court concluded that the OCCA’s application of this procedural bar was an adequate and independent state ground. See Johnson v. Champion, 288 F.3d 1215, 1227 n. 3 (10th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). Petitioner did not attempt to excuse the 
 Holding statements: (A) holding state rule barring review of postconviction petitioners claims where petitioner failed to provide supporting documentation is adequate procedural ground on which to bar federal habeas review (B) holding that a ground for relief not pled in a motion for postconviction relief is waived and cannot be raised on appeal (C) holding that section 34810 is an adequate and independent state ground (D) holding occas declination of jurisdiction over appeal from denial of postconviction relief based on petitioners failure to comply with occa rule 52 was adequate and independent state ground (E) holding that   15a1419a3 is an independent and adequate state ground for a state courts finding of procedural default
Output (English): holding state rule barring review of postconviction petitioners claims where petitioner failed to provide supporting documentation is adequate procedural ground on which to bar federal habeas review