1 RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 15a0266p.06 

### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

_________________

A BU -A LI A BDUR ’RAHMAN , Petitioner-Appellant ,

v

.

W AYNE C ARPENTER , Warden, Respondent-Appellee

. ┐ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ ┘ No. 13-6126

Appeal from the United St ates District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee at Nashville. No. 3:96-cv-00380—Todd J. Campbell, Chief District Judge. Decided and Filed: November 4, 2015 Before: COLE, Chief Judge; SILER and BATCHELDER, Circuit Judges.

_________________ COUNSEL ON BRIEF: Thomas C. Goldstein, Eric F. Citron, GOLDSTEIN & RUSSELL, P.C., Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Andrew C. Coulam, OFFICE OF THE TENNESSEE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Nashville, Tennessee, for Appellee. SILER, J., delivered the opinion of the c ourt in which BATCHELDER, J., joined, and COLE, C.J., joined in part. COLE, C.J. (pp. 10 –20), delivered a separate opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.

_________________ OPINION

_________________ SILER, Circuit Judge. Abu-Ali Abdur’Rahman (formerly known as James Lee Jones), a Tennessee death-row prisoner, app eals the district court’s judgme nt denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for relief from the 1998 judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus 

### >No. 13-6126 Abdur’Rahman v. Carpenter Page 2

petition. Abdur’Rahman has also filed a motion to remand. For the reasons stated below, we AFFIRM the district court’s judgment and DENY the motion to remand.

FACTUAL AND PROCED URAL BACKGROUND In 1987, Abdur’Rahman was convicted of first- degree murder, assault with intent to commit first-degree murder, and armed robbery. He was sentenced to death for the murder charge and to life imprisonment for the other charges. The Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentences. State v. Jones , 789 S.W.2d 545 (Tenn. 1990). Abdur’Rahman petitioned for post-conviction relief in state court. He alleged, inter alia , ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing and prosecutorial misconduct for failing to turn over exculpatory evidence. The trial and appell ate courts denied him relief. See Jones v. State , No. 01C01-9402- CR-00079, 1995 WL 75427 (Tenn. Crim. App. Feb. 23, 1995). Abdu r’Rahman filed his § 2254 petition in 1996. In 1998, the di strict court granted Abdur’Rahman relief on his claim that trial counsel performed ineffectively by failing to investigate and present mitigating evidence. Abdur’Rahman v. Bell , 999 F. Supp. 1073, 1091-1102 (M.D. Te nn. 1998). This court vacated the district court’s decision, concluding that Abdur’Rahman was not prejudiced by his counsel’s performance at sentencing. Abdur’Rahman v. Bell , 226 F.3d 696, 708-09, 715 (6th Cir. 2000). Abdur’Rahman filed a Rule 60(b) motion in 2001. After procedural rulings by the district court, this court, and the Supreme Court, we granted Abdur’Rahman a certificate of appealability with respect to two claims: whether the pros ecution violated Abdur’Rahman’s rights under Brady v. Maryland , 373 U.S. 83 (1963), by withholdi ng his codefendant’s pretrial statements, and whether the prosecution violated Brady by withholding a police report which indicated that Abdur’Rahman was me ntally disturbed at the time of his arrest. We held that the prosecution did not violate Brady with respect to the codefendant ’s pretrial statements because Abdur’Rahman knew the content of the statements and knew that the codefendant had met with the prosecution before trial. Abdur’Rahman v. Colson , 649 F.3d 468, 474-75 (6th Cir. 2011). Regarding Abdur’Rahman’s behavior after he wa s arrested, we found that trial counsel knew something happened after his arrest, interviewe d the police officer about what happened, and could have obtained a sepa rate report on the incident. Theref ore, the suppressionof the report did not undermine our confidence in Abdur’Rahman’s sentence. Id . at 475-76. Abdur’RahmanNo. 13-6126 Abdur’Rahman v. Carpenter Page 3

also argued that the two Brady claims certified for appeal should have been cumulated with prosecutorial misconduct or ineff ective assistance of counsel clai ms from his habeas petition. We concluded that because Abdur’Rahman had faile d to raise a cumulative error claim in state court he could not raise one for the first time in habeas . Id. at 473. Moreover, review of the cumulative error arguments was foreclosed beca use they were not certified for appeal. Id

. The subject of this appeal is the Rule 60(b) motion Abdur’R ahman filed in March 2013. He asked the district court to reopen claims he alleged had b een found procedurally defaulted, arguing that in the wake of Martinez v. Ryan , 132 S. Ct. 1309 (2012), “the federal courts have no interest in enforcing a judgm ent now shown to be predicat ed on non-existent procedural defaults.” The district court directed Abdur’Rahman to stat e each claim for which he sought relief from judgment, cite where that claim appears in the Amended Petition, and cite where the district court dismissed the claim on proce dural grounds. Abdur’Rahman responded by stating that he was presenting two claims: (1) cumula tive error affecting his sentencing arising from prosecutorial misconduct and ineffective assist ance of counsel; and (2) an improper jury instruction regarding accomplice testimony and trial counsel’s and appellate counsel’s failure to challenge the instruction. The district court concluded that Martinezand Trevino v. Thaler , 133 S. Ct. 1911 (2013), did not apply to cases ar ising in Tennessee because Tennessee courts offer a meaningful opportunity to raise claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel on direct appeal. However, the district court subsequent ly granted a certificate of appealability on “the issue of whether the Respondent’s procedural defenses to certain claims are still viable in light of the Supreme Court’s decisions in Martinez . . . and Trevino .” After the district court issued its certificate of applicability, this court ruled that Martinez and Trevino are applicable to criminal convictions in Tennessee. See Sutton v. Carpenter , 745 F.3d 787, 789 (6th Cir. 2014). In response to that decision, Abdur’Rahman filed a motion for remand back to the district court. The mo tion was subsequently refe rred to this panel for consideration along with the merits.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

This court reviews the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion for an abuse of discretion. See McGuire v. Warden, Chillicothe Corr. Inst. , 738 F.3d 741, 750 (6th Cir. 2013), cert. denied ,No. 13-6126 Abdur’Rahman v. Carpenter Page 4

134 S. Ct. 998 (2014). A movant seeking relief under Rule 60(b)(6) must show “extraordinary circumstances” justifying the reopening of a final judgment, and such circumstances rarely occur in habeas cases. Gonzalez v. Crosby , 545 U.S. 524, 535 (2005); Carter v. Anderson , 585 F.3d 1007, 1011 (6th Cir. 2009). “[I]t ‘is well establishe d that a change in decisional law is usually not, by itself, an “extraordinary circumst ance” meriting Rule 60(b)(6) relief.’” Henness v. Bagley , 766 F.3d 550, 557 (6th Cir. 2014), cert denied , 135 S. Ct. 1708 (2015) (quoting McGuire , 738 F.3d at 750; see also Stokes v. Williams , 475 F.3d 732, 735 (6th Cir. 2007); Blue Diamond Coal Co. v. Trs. of UMWA Combined Benefit Fund , 249 F.3d 519, 524 (6th Cir. 2001).

APPLICABLE LAW

In Martinez , the Supreme Court held that ineffec tive assistance or lack of collateral counsel may constitute cause to ex cuse the procedural default of anineffective assistance of trial counsel claim. Martinez , 132 S. Ct. at 1320. “Where, under state law, claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel must be raised in an initial-review collateral proceeding, a procedural default will not bar a federal habeas court from hearing a substantial claim of ineffective assistance at trial if, in the in itial-review collateral proceeding, there was no counsel or counsel in that proceeding was ineffective.” Id . A substantial claim is one that has some merit and is debatable among jurists of reason. Id . at 1318-19 (citing Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322 (2003)). Martinez only permits ineffective assistance of post-convictioncounsel to excuse the default of ineffective assistance of trial couns el claims, and does not extend to “appeals from initial-review collateral proceed ings, second or successive collate ral proceedings, and petitions for discretionary review in a State’s appellate courts.” Martinez , 132 S. Ct. at 1320. Moreover, Martinez does not apply to excuse the default of a cl aim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. Hodges v. Colson , 727 F.3d 517, 531 (6th Cir. 2013), cert. denied , 135 S. Ct. 1545 (2015).

Trevino applied the Martinez exception to Texas “where . . . state procedural framework, by reason of its design and operation, makes it highl y unlikely in a typical case that a defendant will have a meaningful opportunity to raise a claim of ineffectiv e assistance of trial counsel on direct appeal.” 133 S. Ct. at 1921. Because Martinezand Trevino apply in Tennessee, “ineffective assistance of post-conviction counse l can establish cause to excuse a TennesseeNo. 13-6126 Abdur’Rahman v. Carpenter Page 5

defendant’s procedural default of a substantial claim of ineff ective assistance at trial.” Sutton , 745 F.3d at 795-96 (citing Martinez , 132 S. Ct. at 1320). Tennessee’ s procedural law makes it almost impossible for a defendant to present an ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim on direct appeal, and Tennessee courts have direct ed defendants to raise su ch claims on collateral review. Id . at 792-93.

DISCUSSION In light of our decision in Sutton , it is clear that the district court erred when it ruled that Martinez and Trevino did not apply to a case arising in Tenn essee. However, the issue certified for appeal was whether Martinez and Trevino had an impact on the specific claims raised by Abdur’Rahman, and we may affirm a district court’s ruling on any ground supported by the record. United States v. Phillips , 752 F.3d 1047, 1049 (6th Cir. 2014), cert denied , 135 S. Ct. 464 (2014). Although Martinez applies to cases arising in Tenness ee, it does not apply to the claims in Abdur’Rahman’s motion. The first claim is not one of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The second claim, to the extent it includes a clai m of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, was not defaulted. And even if Martinez did apply, that case was a chan ge in decisional law and does not constitute an extraordinary circum stance meriting Rule 60(b)(6) relief. See Henness , 766 F.3d at 557. Nor does Abdur’Rahman point to any other extraordinar y circumstances; there are no newly developed facts since the denial of his habeas petit ion and previous Rule 60(b)(6) motion and the Martinez exception is not a change in the constitutional rights of criminal defendants, see Martinez , 132 S. Ct. at 1318.

I. Cumulative Error In earlier litigation, Abdur’Rahman asserted th at he was not making a separate claim of cumulative error. Abdur’Rahman , 999 F. Supp. at 1083 n.10. In his most recent appeal, Abdur’Rahman argued as he does now that his individual Brady claims should be cumulated with prosecutorial misconduct or ineffective a ssistance of counsel claims from his § 2254 petition. This court held that he had procedur ally defaulted his cumulative error claim by failing to raise it on direct appeal or in post-convic tion proceedings and thatit was not certified forNo. 13-6126 Abdur’Rahman v. Carpenter Page 6

appeal. Abdur’Rahman , 649 F.3d at 472-73. Martinez does not provide grounds for Abdur’Rahman to excuse the default of his cu mulative error claim because the Supreme Court limited its ruling to the default of substantial clai ms of ineffective assist ance of trial counsel. See Trevino , 133 S. Ct. at 1918; Martinez , 132 S. Ct. at 1320. Abdur’Rahman argues that his direct appeal counsel were ineffective for failing to preserve his cumulative error claim. But Martinez does not apply to claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. See Martinez , 132 S. Ct. at 1320; Hodges , 727 F.3d at 531.

Even if we were to dissect the cumulative error claim and separately analyze Abdur’Rahman’s underlying claims of Brady violations and prosecutorial misconduct, Martinez would not apply to those claims because the Court limited Martinez to claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel that were procedurally defaulted by lack of or ineffective assistance of post-conviction counsel. Martinez , 132 S. Ct. at 1320; see also Hunton v. Sinclair , 732 F.3d 1124, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2013) (refusing to extend Martinezto a Brady claim defaulted by state post-conviction counsel), cert. denied , 134 S. Ct. 1771 (2014). Moreover, even if Martinez applied to these types of claims, it would no t apply here because, as we explain below, Abdur’Rahman did not default them. In his Rule 60(b) motion, Abdur’Rahman lis ted seven instances of prosecutorial misconduct that he claimed contributed to his cumulative error claim. First, he alleged that the prosecution withheld the transc ript of Abdur’Rahman’s 1972 murd er trial, which he claimed could have established that he ha d been mentally ill since that time and that he killed the victim in that case because of the victim’s homosexua l advances rather than a drug turf war. We reviewed the claim on its merits and found no Brady violation. Abdur’Rahman , 649 F.3d at 478. Second, Abdur’Rahman charged th at the prosecutor withheld a report by Detective Mark Garafola about Abdur’Rahman’s behavior on the day of his arrest, which Abdur’Rahman claimed would have shown he was me ntally disturbed. We again found no Brady violation. Id

. at 476-78. Third, Abdur’Rahman alleged that the prosecu tion withheld evidence from a pre-trial statement by a co-defendant that the murder was orchestrated by the South East Gospel Ministry (SEGM). We found no Brady violation because Abdur’Rahman knew that the co -defendant hadNo. 13-6126 Abdur’Rahman v. Carpenter Page 7

talked to the prosecutor about the SEGM and Abdur’Rahman testified similarly at trial. Id . at 473-75. Fourth, Abdur’Rahman claimed that the prosecutor lied to the trial court about Abdur’Rahman’s mental illness. After a series of appeals and remands, the district court reviewed the claim on the merits and denied it. Abdur’Rahman v. Bell , No. 3:96-0380, 2009 WL 211133, at *16 (M.D. Tenn. Jan. 26, 2009). Fifth, Abdur’Rahman alleged that the pros ecutor lied to defense counsel about the 1972 conviction. According to Abdur’Rahman, the pr osecutor told defense counsel that an FBI agent could testify that Abdur’R ahman killed the other prisoner as part of a drug turf war and defense counsel was too intimidated to put on ev idence about the crime. The district court addressed the merits and found that ther e was no prosecutorial misconduct. Id. at *17. Sixth, Abdur’Rahman claimed that the pr osecutor lied to the jury about Abdur’Rahman’s culpability by arguing that the defense’s theory that the SE GM orchestrated the killing was “bunk.” The district court rejected the claim on the merits. Id. at *6-9. Seventh, Abdur’Rahman charged that the prosecutor showed the jury an indictment ag ainst Abdur’Rahman for robbery in violation of a trial court order. The district court also addressed the merits of this claim. Id. at *18. Martinez does not apply to claims that were fully adjudi cated on the merits in state court because those claims are, by definition, notprocedurally defaulted. Detrich v. Ryan , 740 F.3d 1237, 1246 (9th Cir. 2013) (en banc), cert. denied , 134 S. Ct. 2662 (2014); see also Dansby v. Hobbs , 766 F.3d 809, 840 (8th Cir. 2014) (holding that Martinez did not apply to ineffective assistance of counsel sub-claims that were not defaulted by post-conviction counsel), cert. denied , __ S. Ct. (2015); Lambrix v. Sec’y , Fla. Dep’t of Corr. , 756 F.3d 1246, 1260-61 (11th Cir.) (holding that Martinez did not apply to case where ineffective assist ance of trial counsel claims were reviewed on the merits in a § 2254 proceeding), cert. denied , 135 S. Ct. 64 (2014); Schad v. Ryan , 732 F.3d 963, 966-67 (9th Cir.) (affirming denial of Rule 60(b) relief because petitioner’s “new” claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel involved the same allegation as his original ineffectiveness claim), cert. denied , 134 S. Ct. 417 (2013). Be cause the prosecutorial misconduct and Brady claims were decided on the merits and not procedurally defaulted, Martinez does not apply.No. 13-6126 Abdur’Rahman v. Carpenter Page 8

Abdur’Rahman also argues that his trial co unsel failed to investigate and present mitigating evidence. The state court found th at Abdur’Rahman’s counsel’s performance was deficient but that he ha d not shown prejudice. Jones , 1995 WL 75427, at *2. We agreed. Abdur’Rahman , 226 F.3d at 708. Martinez does not apply to claims th at were fully adjudicated on the merits in state court. See Martinez , 132 S. Ct. at 1320; Dansby , 766 F.3d at 840; Lambrix , 756 F.3d at 1260-61; Detrich , 740 F.3d at 1246; Schad , 732 F.3d at 966-67. Accordingly, Abdur’Rahman cannot relitigate this claim, and the viability of the Warden’s procedural defenses is unaffected by Martinez and Trevino

. II. Improper Jury Instruction Regarding Accomplice Testimony

Martinez is also inapplicable to Abdur’Rahman’s claims that the trial court failed to instruct the jury that it could not convictAbdur’Rahman unless there was evidence to corroborate his accomplice’s testimony, and that tria l and appellate counsel were ineffective for failing to raise this issue. Martinez applies only to claims of in effective assistance of trial counsel, not trial errors or claims of in effective assistance of appellate counsel. See Martinez , 132 S. Ct. at 1320; Dansby , 766 F.3d at 833; Hodges , 727 F.3d at 531; Banks v. Workman , 692 F.3d 1133, 1148 (10th Cir. 2012); Arnold v. Dormire , 675 F.3d 1082, 1087 (8th Cir. 2012). This disposes of the first and third co mponents of Abdur’Rahman’s argument. Abdur’Rahman does not show, nor do the distri ct court decisions reflect, whether he procedurally defaulted the ineffec tive assistance of trial counsel component of this claim. If he did not, Martinez would not apply because the claim is not defaulted. See Martinez , 132 S. Ct. at 1320; Dansby , 766 F.3d at 840; Lambrix , 756 F.3d at 1260-61; Detrich , 740 F.3d at 1246; Schad , 732 F.3d at 966-67. If, however, he did default the claim, the Martinez exception would not apply because the underlying claim is not substantial. See Martinez , 132 S. Ct. at 1320. Under Tennessee law, a conviction cannot be based upon the uncorro borated testimony of an accomplice. State v. Bigbee , 885 S.W.2d 797, 803 (Tenn. 1994), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in State v. Odom , 137 S.W.3d 572, 580-81 (Tenn. 2004). There must be independent evidence, however slight, from which the jury can infe r that the defendant committed the crime. State v. Gaylor , 862 S.W.2d 546, 552 (Tenn. Cr im. App. 1992). A trial court’s failure to give anNo. 13-6126 Abdur’Rahman v. Carpenter Page 9

accomplice instruction can be harmless error if the accomplice’s testimony is corroborated sufficiently. See State v. Ballinger , 93 S.W.3d 881, 888 (T enn. Crim. App. 2001), overruled on other grounds by State v. Collier , 411 S.W.3d 886, 899-900 (Tenn. 2013). Abdur’Rahman’s codefendant was an accomplice as a matter of law, so the trial court should have instructed the jury that his testimony had to be corroborated. See State v. Robinson , 239 S.W.3d 211, 227-28 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2006); State v. Perkinson , 867 S.W.2d 1, 7-8 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1992). On direct appeal, Abdur’Rahman challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction for first-degree murder. The Te nnessee Supreme Court c oncluded that, although there was some conflict between the co-defendant’s testimony and that of other prosecution witnesses, the evidence was sufficient to uph old the conviction. The surviving victim of Abdur’Rahman’s attack testified, and there was physical evidence tying him to the crimes. Jones , 789 S.W.2d at 550. Because there was sufficient evidence to corroborate the accomplice’s testimony, any error by the trial court in its jury instructions was harmless. See Ballinger , 93 S.W.3d at 888. Because Abdur’Rahman wa s not prejudiced by his trial counsel’s failure to request a jury instru ction about the need for eviden ce to corroborate his accomplice’s testimony, the claim he seeks to reopen is not substantial. See Martinez , 132 S. Ct. at 1318-19. Therefore, the Warden’s procedural defenses to this ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim are unaffected by Martinez and Trevino

. As a change in decisional law, Martinez does not constitute an extraordinary circumstance meriting Rule 60(b)(6) relief. Henness , 766 F.3d at 557. Moreover, none of Abdur’Rahman’s claims involve substantial claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel that were procedurally defaulte d by inadequate post-convict ion counsel. Therefore, Martinez does not apply to the claims in Abdu r’Rahman’s Rule 60(b) motion.

CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the di strict court’s judgment is AFFIRMED , and the motion to remand is DENIED

.No. 13-6126 Abdur’Rahman v. Carpenter Page 10

_____________________________________________________ CONCURRING IN PART A ND DISSENTING IN PART

_____________________________________________________ COLE, Chief Judge, concurring in part and di ssenting in part. As an initial matter, I concur with the majority in its conclusion that the district court clearly erred in dismissing Abdur’Rahman’s Rule 60(b) motion on the basis that Martinez v. Ryan , 132 S. Ct. 1309 (2012), and Trevino v. Thaler , 133 S. Ct. 1911 (2013), do not apply to cases arising in Tennessee. Maj. Op. at 5. Our decision in Sutton v. Carpenter , 745 F.3d 787 (6th Cir. 2014) , squarely determines this issue. As this is the only question befo re us, I would remand on that issue alone, without reaching the merits of Abdur’Rahman’s claims. However, the majority goes on to consider the merits of Abdur’Rahman’s Rule 60(b) motion, including (1) whether that motion shoul d be granted, (2) whether Abdur’Rahman’s claims qualify under the Martinez/Trevino exceptions, and (3) whether Abdur’Rahman could be successful on his claims. These issues are not pr operly before this court, nor were they actually presented to this court. 1 Because I disagree with the majo rity’s conclusions on each of these issues, I dissent. I. Limited Issue on Appeal In response to Abdur’Rahman’s initial habe as petition, the Warden “argue[d] that the Court should not reach the merits of several of [Abdur’Rahman’s] claims because [Abdur’Rahman] failed to raise those claims in st ate court, and has, therefore, procedurally defaulted those claims.” Abdur’Rahman v. Bell , 999 F. Supp. 1073, 1079 (M.D. Tenn. 1998) aff’d in part, vacated in part on other grounds , 226 F.3d 696 (6th Cir. 2000). In 2013, Abdur’Rahman filed a Rule 60(b) mo tion arguing that, in light of Martinez/ Trevino , certain of his claims were no longer procedurally defaul ted. The district court dismissed, finding that Abdur’Rahman’s “request to recons ider his claims, under Rule 60 or otherwise, should be denied because the Martinez/Trevino decisions do not apply to reve rse the findings of procedural default.” Rahman v. Carpenter , No. 3:96-0380, 2013 WL 3865071, at *3 (M.D. Tenn. July 25,

1 To the extent the Warden raises these issues in opposition to Abdur’Rahman’s motion for remand, they are not proper and cannot be co nsidered in this context. See Dkt. 38; see also Abdur’Rahman’s Reply, Dkt. 39.No. 13-6126 Abdur’Rahman v. Carpenter Page 11

2013). This decision was based solely on the fact that the district court did not believe Martinez and Trevino applied to the Tennessee courts: Unlike defendants in Texas, defendants in Tennessee are not faced with a system in which it is “highly unlikely” they w ill have “a meaningful opportunity” to raise a claim of ineffective assist ance of trial counsel during th e direct appeal process. As the cases cited above indicate, pro cedural rules allow Tennessee defendants such a meaningful opportunity through th e motion for new trial and evidentiary hearing mechanism. That most defendants choose to defer raising such a claim until the post-conviction process does not mean that raising the claim on direct appeal is “virtually impossible” as was the case in Trevino

. Id. at *6. The district court di d not consider the merits of Abdur’Rahman’s claims or even whether the particular claims a sserted would be sufficient if Martinez/Trevino applied. See id. at *3–6. Neither should we d ecide these issues. We may not conduct appellate review of an order unless there exis ts a “certificate of appealability [to] indicate which specific issue or issues satisfy” a “substant ial showing of the denial of a constitutional right .” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)–(3) (emphasis added). Our review is thus limited to that issue. While we may “affirm a district court’s ruling on any ground supported by the record,” we may not review issues not properly before us on appeal. See, e.g., id. ; 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291, 1331. Here, the certificate of appealability is limited to “the issue of whether the Respondent’s procedural defenses to certain claims are still viable in lig ht of the Supreme Court’s decisions in Martinez and Trevino .” (R. 377 (emphasis added).) Based on our decision in Sutton , the answer to this question is a simple “no.” Respondent cannot continue to assert the defense that Abdur’Rahman’s claims are procedurally barred fo r failure to present them in state court. See Maj. Op. at 5 (citing Sutton , 745 F.3d at 795–96) (acknowledging “i t is clear that the district court erred when it ruled that Martinez and Trevino did not apply to a case arising in Tennessee.”). I would end our inquiry here and remand to the district court for further proceedings.No. 13-6126 Abdur’Rahman v. Carpenter Page 12

II. Whether Petitioner’s Rule 60(b) Motion Should Be Granted We have previously held that “Martinez was a change in deci sional law and does not constitute an extraordinary circumstance meriti ng Rule 60(b)(6) relief.” Maj. Op. at 5. However, Abdur’Rahman did not limit his mo tion to relief under subsection (6). ( See Mot., R. 351, PageID 383.) Instead, the district cour t should review Abdur’Rahman’s motion to determine whether it meets the requirements under any of the permissible grounds for relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). For example, the court’ s refusal to decide Abdur’Rahman’s claims on the merits, despite their procedural default, could be considered a “mistake” under Rule 60(b)(1). See Bell , 493 F. 3d at 741 (holding the motion was more appropriately analyzed under Rule 60(b)(1), because the district court made a mistake when it determined that Abdur’Rahman’s claim was not exhausted in state court) (opinion vacated by en banc).

Even if Abdur’Rahman’s motion did rest on subs ection (6), “[t]he decision to grant Rule 60(b)(6) relief is a case-by-case inquiry that requires the trial court to intensively balance numerous factors , including the competing poli cies of the finality of judgments and the incessant command of the court’s conscience that justi ce be done in light of all the facts.” E.g. , McGuire v. Warden, Chillicothe Corr. Inst. , 738 F.3d 741, 750 (6th Cir. 2013) (citations omitted) (emphasis added); accord Order, R. 312, PageID 15 (6thCir. Jan. 18, 2008) (finding Abdur’Rahman’s 2001 Rule 60(b) motion was timel y and remanding to district court “for a determination of whether the motion should be gran ted.”) (Siler, J.). As we have previously held, this decision is best left in the hands of the district court.

III. Whether the Motion Raises Martinez/Trevino Claims A. The District Court should determine this question Similarly, the district court should determine, in the first instance, whether Abdur’Rahman’s claims qualify under Martinez/Trevino . Notably, the two principal Supreme Court cases at issue were remanded to the district court. See Martinez , 132 S. Ct. at 1321, on remand , 680 F.3d 1160, 1160 (9th Cir. 2012) (“The district court properly applied the law as it stood at the time of Martinez’s petition. Howeve r . . . the Supreme Court changed the law. Therefore, the district court’s denial of Martinez ’s petition for habeas corpus on the basis that hisNo. 13-6126 Abdur’Rahman v. Carpenter Page 13

claim was procedurally defaulted is RE VERSED, and the matter is REMANDED for proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court’s opinion.”); Trevino , 133 S. Ct. at 1921 , on remand , 740 F.3d 378, 378 (5th Cir. 2014) (“[W]e re mand to the district court for full reconsideration of the Petitioner’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim in accordance with both Trevino and Martinez .”). These courts recognized that th e district court is best suited to conduct an initial review of the merits of previously procedurally defaulted ineffectiveassistance-of-trial and post-c onviction counsel claims. In a similar case, our court recognized that the district court is best suited to make these kinds of determinations under Martinez/Trevino

. [Petitioner] maintains that, by granting a COA, we have already determined that [Petitioner’s] IATC claims are “substanti al,” and therefore, we should remand with direction for the district court to de termine solely whether prejudice exists so as to excuse his procedural defaul t. . . . We disagree. First, Sutton held that: “ineffective assistance of post-conviction counsel can ”—but does not by the mere fact of being raised—“es tablish cause to excuse a Tennessee defendant’s procedural default of a s ubstantial claim of ineffective assistance at trial.” 745 F.3d at 795–96 (emphasis added). Moreover, in Martinez, the Supreme Court remanded the case, directing the lower c ourt to determine: (1) “whether [the petitioner’s] attorney in his first collateral proceeding was ineffective”; (2) whether his claim of IATC was “subs tantial”; and (3) whether the petitioner was prejudiced. 132 S. Ct. at 1321; Schriro, 2012 WL 5936566, at *1–2 (noting the requirements on remand). The Court in Trevino provided similar guidance, indicating: “we do not decide here wh ether Trevino’s claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel is substantial or whether Trev ino’s initial state habeas attorney was ineffective.” 133 S. Ct. at 1921. The Court left those issues and merit issues “to be determined on remand.” Id. We follow suit. Atkins v. Holloway , 792 F.3d 654, 660–61 (6th Cir. 2015) (Siler, J.). We reached a similar conclusion in another case:

In Trevino itself, the district c ourt had alternatively rule d that the IATC claims failed to demonstrate the nece ssary prejudice. This merits ruling did not deter the Supreme Court from using Trevino as a vehicle for promul gating an expansion of the procedural default exception created by Martinez . And on remand from the Supreme Court, the Fifth Circuit did not reaffirm the district court based on the alternative merits ruling, but instead remanded the whole matter back to the district court for “full reconsideration of the Petitioner’s ine ffective assistance of counsel claim.” [Petitioner] has thus far been unable to obtain an evidentiary hearing on his IATC claims in either st ate post-conviction pro ceedings or federalNo. 13-6126 Abdur’Rahman v. Carpenter Page 14

habeas proceedings. This absence of fact ual development (which nullifies a key advantage of bringing such IATC claims in collateral proceedings) hamstrings this court’s ability to determine whether “there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” We therefore remand this matter back to the district court for a “full reconsideration” of th e four IATC claims that we re not previously presented to the Kentucky courts in collateral pro ceedings and consideration of whether to conduct an evidentiary hearing. This rec onsideration would first address whether [Petitioner] can demonstrate (1) the absen ce or ineffective assistance of his postconviction counsel and (2) the “substant ial” nature of his underlying IATC claims. If Woolbright can demonstrate th ese two elements and therefore establish cause to excuse his procedural default, the district court can then reconsider whether Woolbright can establish prej udice from the alleged ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Woolbright v. Crews , 791 F.3d 628, 637 (6th Cir. 2015) (Siler, J.). Likewise, other cases have recognized that the district court is best suited to de termine, in the firs t instance, whether a petitioner has establishe d cause to excuse a procedural default. See, e.g. , Leberry v. Howerton , 583 F. App’x 497, 498 (6th Cir. 2014), as corrected (Nov. 6, 2014) (Cole, C.J.) (unpub.) (“[Petitioner] can establish cause, but the district court did not determine if [petitioner] could demonstrate prejudice to overcome his procedural default. Therefore, we reverse and remand this issue to the district court to consider whether [petitioner] can establish prejudice.”); Grimes v. Superintendent Graterford SCI, No. 14-1146, 2015 WL 4461824, at *2 (3d Cir. July 22, 2015) (reversing district cour t’s dismissal of ineffective-assi stance-of-trial-counsel claims as procedurally defaulted and remandi ng for an evidentiary hearing); Butler v. Stephens , No. 09- 70003, 2015 WL 5235206, at *17 (5th Cir. Sept. 9, 2015) (“[W]e conclude th at the trial court should, in the first instance, be allowed to apply Martinez in accordance with Trevino to determine whether [petitioner] can demonstrate cau se for his procedural default and whether his claims have some merit under Martinez .”). Further, the question at this stage sh ould be limited to whether there is cause to excuse the procedural default of certain claims, not whether Abdur’Rahman can ultimately succeed on his claim that trial c ounsel was ineffective: “Cause,” however, is not synonymous w ith “a ground for relief.” A finding of cause and prejudice does not entitle the prisone r to habeas relief. It merely allows a federal court to consider the merits of a claim that otherw ise would have been procedurally defaulted.No. 13-6126 Abdur’Rahman v. Carpenter Page 15

Martinez , 132 S. Ct. at 1320. Whether Abdur’Rahman cansucceed on the merits of his claims is best left to the trial court in th e first instance, in light of all relevant evidence. As we have done before, we should “remand[] the whole matter back to the district court fo r ‘full reconsideration of the Petitioner’s ineffective a ssistance of counsel claim.’” See Woolbright , 791 F.3d at 637.

B. Petitioner’s claims are Martinez/Trevino claims Having chosen not to remand, we must apply Martinez/Trevino to Abdur’Rahman’s claims. In Martinez , the Supreme Court determined that “[ i]nadequate assistance of counsel at initial-review-collateral proceedings may establish cause for a prisoner’s procedural default of a claim of ineffective as sistance at trial.” Martinez , 132 S. Ct. at 1315. The Supreme Court distinguished between a habeas argument that solely relies on post-conviction counsel’s ineffectiveness versus a habeas argument th at post-conviction counsel was ineffective and defaulted a claim that trial counsel was ineffective:In this case, for example, Martinez’s “ground for relief” is his ineffectiveassistance-of-trial-counsel claim, a cl aim that AEDPA does not bar. Martinez relies on the ineffectiveness of his post-conviction attorney to excuse his failure to comply with Arizona’s procedural rules, not as an independent basis for overturning his conviction. In short, while § 2254(i) precludes Martinez from relying on the ineffectiveness of his pos t-conviction attorney as a “ground for relief,” it does not stop Martinez fr om using it to establish “cause.”
Id. at 320 (citing Holland v. Florida , 560 U.S. 631, 649–50 (2010) (fi nding that post-conviction counsel’s “egregious” and “extraordinary” conduct that time-barred a prison er’s habeas claims may equitably toll the statute of limitations fo r filing a petition for a wr it of habeas corpus)).

In Trevino , the Supreme Court extended its Martinez holding to apply to states in which a defendant is permitted to raise claims of ineff ective assistance of counsel on direct review, but the structure and design of the state system “m ake it ‘virtually impossible’ for an ineffective assistance claim to be presented on direct review.” Trevino , 133 S. Ct. at 1915. Thus, to raise a claim for ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel in habeas proceedings under the exceptions set forth in Martinez/Trevino , a petitioner must allege that (1) trial counsel was ineffective; (2) counsel in the initial-review-collateral proceeding, where the claim should have been raised, was ineff ective under the standards of Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668No. 13-6126 Abdur’Rahman v. Carpenter Page 16

(1984); (3) the claim of ineffectiv e-assistance-of-trial-counsel wa s procedurally defaulted; and (4) the underlying ineffective-assi stance-of-trial-counsel claim is a substantial one, which is to say that the prisoner must demonstr ate that the claim has some merit— not that the prisoner will ultimately prevail on his claim. See Martinez , 132 S. Ct. at 1318–19 (citat ions omitted). Here, Abdur’Rahman met these requirements. 1. Petitioner alleges trial counsel was ineffective Abdur’Rahman argues that his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to address cumulative errors 2 and correct the accomplice jury instruction. ( See Pet’r Statement, R. 367, PageID 520–23.) This is sufficient to meet the first prong of the Martinez/Trevino test. 2. Petitioner alleges post-con viction counsel was ineffective

Martinez does not apply to claims of ineffect ive assistance of appellate counsel. See Atkins , 792 F.3d at 661 (holding thatineffectiveness of post-convi ction counsel could establish cause to reopen judgment, but ineffectiveness of post-conviction appellat e counsel could not). However, as evidenced by the briefs in this co urt and in the filings below, Abdur’Rahman does not simply claim that his appe llate counsel was ineffective—he claims that post-conviction counsel was ineffective in failing to assert that (1) trial counsel was ineffective and (2) direct appeal counsel was ineffectiv e. The applicability of Martinez/Trevino to Abdur’Rahman’s motion is further augmented by th e fact that Abdur’Rahman’s di rect appeal counsel was the

2 It is unclear, based on the limited record on the motion, whether Abdur’Rahman argues that the underlying Brady and prosecutorial misconduct claims are also claims for ineffective-assistan ce-of-trial-counsel. The motion states “to secure relief under Martinez , Abdur’Rahman must establish . . . post-conviction counsel was ineffective . . . for failing to otherwise allege that trial or appellate counsel were ineffective for failing to raise the cumulative error claim.” (Mot., R. 351, PageID 392.) Under Martinez/Trevino , this could be sufficient cause to excuse the default. However, the motion also states “Abdur’Rahman’s cumulative error claim is not defaulted because . . . post-conviction counsel wa s ineffective for failing to present th is winning claim during the state postconviction process.” ( Id. at 392–93.) This would not be sufficient cause under Martinez / Trevino because it relies solely on errors in post-conviction pr oceedings. The motion goes on to argue “the totality of the prejudice flowing both from counsel’s ineffectiveness at sentencing and the prosecution’s misconduct . . . presents not just a substantial cumulative error claim, but a meritorious one on which he is entitled to habeas relief.” ( Id. at 393.) This statement appears to again equate the prosecutorial miscon duct claims and ineffective-a ssistance-of-counsel claims, which would suffice under Martinez/Trevino. Further development of the record is required to determine whether the cumulative error claim is a claim fo r ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel. In considering this very question before, I concluded these claims were linked: “The Brady violations and Strickland ineffective assistance fed off each other at trial in a perverse symbiosis that infected the verdict with constitutional error.” Abdur’Rahman v. Colson , 649 F.3d 468, 483 (6th Cir. 2011) (Cole, J., dissenting).No. 13-6126 Abdur’Rahman v. Carpenter Page 17

same as his post-conviction counsel. ( See, e.g. , Supplemental Auth., R. 353, PageID 455.) Recognizing this, Abdur’Rahman interchangeablyrefers to appellate counsel’s and postconviction counsel’s ineffectiveness as the basis for this motion. ( See generally , id. ; Mot., R. 351.) Thus, Abdur’Rahman’s arguments regarding “appellate counsel’s ine ffectiveness” are one and the same with his arguments regarding “post- conviction counsel’s ineffectiveness.” These are the very types of claims to which Martinez and Trevino do apply. This is sufficient to meet the second prong of the Martinez/Trevino test. 3. Petitioner’s claims were procedurally defaulted Abdur’Rahman alleges the claims in his pr esent motion were procedurally defaulted because his ineffective post-conviction c ounsel failed to rais e these issues. ( Id. ) Assuming the cumulative error claim is a claim for ineffectiveness of trial couns el, it was clearly procedurally defaulted. This court noted

Because Abdur’Rahman raised these cumula tive error arguments for the first time on habeas review, we may not consider th em here. . . . Under our own circuit’s precedent, however, cumulative error arguments must be raised separately in the state court and are subject to pro cedural default on habeas review. Abdur’Rahman failed to raise these cumulative error claims on direct appeal or during post-conviction relief in state court. Instead, he only raised a generalized cumulative error argument for the first time in his habeas petition. Because we are bound by this circuit’s prior preced ents, Abdur’Rahman cannot raise either cumulative error argument here. Abdur’Rahman v. Colson , 649 F.3d 468, 472–73 (6th Cir. 2011) (citations omitted).

Abdur’Rahman’s claim that trial counsel wa s ineffective for failing to challenge the accomplice jury instruction was also procedurally defaulted. Petitioner next argues that he has exhausted his claim thatthe trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury that accomp lice testimony must be corroborated by independent evidence. . . . [T]his claim was not fairly presented to the state courts, and has not been exhausted. . . . Petitioner has failed to exhaust all the claims to which Respondent has asserted a procedural default defense. . . . Thus, because Petitioner has no remedy currently availabl e in state court, these claims are procedurally defaulted.No. 13-6126 Abdur’Rahman v. Carpenter Page 18

Bell , 999 F. Supp. at 1081, 1083. 3 This is sufficient to meet the third prong of the Martinez/Trevino test.

4. Petitioner’s claims are substantial

a. Cumulative Error Abdur’Rahman seeks to litigate whether the decision in his case would have been different “given the cumulative error arising from counsel’s ineff ective assistance at sentencing and prosecutorial misconduct.” ( E.g. , Mot., R. 351, PageID 383 (empha sis added).) The district court and this court considered the merits of Abdur’Rahman’s i ndividual prosecutorial misconduct claims and trial counsel’s failure to investigate and present mitigating evidence at sentencing. However, Abdur’Rahman’s separate claim of cumulative error was never adjudicated on the merits and was specifically procedurally defaulted. See Colson , 649 F.3d at 472–73. It is important to look cl osely at the decisions on thes e individual claims and the significance of those findings to a cumulative error argument. The decisions on most of Abdur’Rahman’s claimed errors held there was no Brady violation or pros ecutorial misconduct because there was no prejudice —the court did not find in eac h instance that there was no error

. See, e.g. , Rahman v. Bell , No. 3:96-0380, 2009 WL 211133, at *4–6 (M.D. Tenn. Jan. 26, 2009), aff’d sub nom. Colson , 649 F.3d 468 (6th Cir. 2011) (finding, among other issues, Abdur’Rahman “failed to establ ish materiality resulting from the delay in providing the statement to the defense” and “Petitioner has fa iled to show that any failure to disclose was prejudicial to the Petitioner.”) Further, the court speci fically found that se ntencing counsel was ineffective, but Abdur’Rah man was not prejudiced. See Abdur’Rahman v. Bell , 226 F.3d 696, 708 (6th Cir. 2000). These findings are critical to a cumulative error ar gument because “[t]he cumulative effect of errors that are harmless by themselves can be so prejudicial as to warrant a new trial.” E.g. , United States v. Adams , 722 F.3d 788, 832 (6th Cir. 2013) (emphasis added)

3 It is unclear if Abdur’Rahman actually raised this clai m in the state court. However, this is irrelevant because the Martinez/Trevino exception relies on a claim not being presented in state post-conviction proceedings because post-conviction counsel was ineffective. At the very least, this merits remand for further development of the record to determine whether this cl aim was in fact raised and whether it was procedurally defaulted. If postconviction counsel was ineffective and failed to br ing or exhaust the claim, it is viable under Martinez/Trevino

.No. 13-6126 Abdur’Rahman v. Carpenter Page 19

(citations omitted). Here, where Abdur’Rahman c ited several different claims of error which were decided separately, in seve ral different opinions, by several di fferent courts, it is important to finally consider these errors together

. See, e.g. , id. (“Although no one of the six identified errors may warrant reversal on its own, the cumulative effect of these errors rendered defendants’ trial fundamentally unf air in violation of their rights to due process.”) (quoting Walker v. Engle , 703 F.2d 959, 968 (6th Cir. 1983) (“We need not determine whether each of the alleged errors would, alone, require that we find a de privation of due process. It is clear that the cumulative effect of the conduct of the state wa s to arouse prejudice against the defendant to such an extent that he was de nied fundamental fairness.”); United States v. Parker , 997 F.2d 219, 221 (6th Cir. 1993) (“After examining [the errors] together, however, we are left with the distinct impression that . . . due process was not satisfied in this case.”)). This court previously found that the prosecuti on withheld several pi eces of evidence, but they were not individually ma terial or prejudicial , and that Abdur’Rahman’s trial counsel’s performance at sentencing was de ficient, but not prejudicial. See, e.g. , Bell , 226 F.3d at 707–09. It is possible, upon further development of the le gal arguments, in consid ering this question for the first time, that the court could find the cumulative nature of trial counsel’s deficient performance was in fact prejudicial. This claim has merit under the fourth prong of the Martinez/Trevino test. b. Accomplice Jury Instruction Abdur’Rahman also argues the accomplice jury instruction provides cause to excuse the procedural default of his ineffectiv eness-of-trial-counsel claim. While Martinez does not broadly apply to trial errors, it does appl y if those errors were the result of ineffective-assistance-of-trial counsel. Abdur’Rahman argues that trial counsel failed to challeng e the jury instruction and was thus ineffective. (Mot., R. 351, PageID 422.) He further argues that post-conviction counsel, interchangeable with appellate c ounsel, failed to raise trial counsel ’s ineffectiveness in failing to challenge the improper jury instruction. The court has never considered Abdur’Rahman’s argument regarding the accomplice jury instruction. While the inquiry into whether sufficient evidence existed to support Abdur’Rahman’s conviction may have some overlap with the inquiry into whether trial counselNo. 13-6126 Abdur’Rahman v. Carpenter Page 20

was ineffective in failing to ch allenge the accomplice jury instru ction, it is not the same and requires a separate analysis. It is possible, upon further development of the legal arguments, that the failure to raise this issue at trial was prejudicial to Abdur’Rahman, particularly when viewed in light of other cumulative errors. It is further possible that post-conviction counsel was ineffective in failing to raise this deficiency of the trial counsel. Consequently, this claim also has merit under the fourth prong of the Martinez/Trevino test.

IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, I respectfully concur in part a nd dissent in part.