Opinion ID: 202724
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Clements' Four Other Claims

Text: 33 Clements' habeas petition included, in addition to the three ALOFAR claims (the joint venture and sufficiency claims discussed above, and the jury hold-out claim found exhausted by the district court), four additional claims. 13 Three of these four claims were presented to the Appeals Court, but none were raised before the SJC because they were not mentioned in the ALOFAR. 14 34 Both Baldwin, 541 U.S. at 32, 124 S.Ct. 1347, and Barresi, 296 F.3d at 52 n. 1, explicitly hold that claims omitted from an ALOFAR (or similar petition) are unexhausted. See also Josselyn, 475 F.3d at 3 (We observed [in Mele ], that finding exhaustion where a claim appeared in the Appeals Court's decision but was omitted from the ALOFAR would unfairly require `the SJC to go over each and every opinion of the [Appeals Court] with a fine tooth comb, in an unremitting search for errors that the parties have neglected to pursue ....') (second alteration in original)(quoting Mele, 850 F.2d at 823). The district court therefore correctly ruled that these four claims, omitted from the ALOFAR, were not exhausted.