and procedurally defaulted. STANDARD OF REVIEW Whether a federal habeas applicant has exhausted state remedies is a question of law we review de novo. Morris v. Dretke, 413 F.3d 484, 491 (5th Cir.2005). DISCUSSION A federal habeas petition filed by a state prisoner shall not be granted unless the prisoner exhausts available state remedies. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A); Morris, 413 F.3d at 490. The exhaustion requirement is satisfied when the substance of the federal claim is “fairly presented” to the highest state court on direct appeal or in state post-conviction proceedings, “even if the state court fails to address the federal claim,” Soffar v. Dretke, 368 F.3d 441, 467 (5th Cir.2004), or, if the federal claim is not fairly presented but the state court addresses it sua spont .1987) (<HOLDING>). “Rather, the petitioner must afford the state
holding that petition presenting statelaw sufficiency challenge fairly presented a federal sufficiency challenge because the federal and state standards applicable to petitioners claims are identical not merely somewhat similar  holding that district court correctly applied state law procedural bar to petitioners jury challenge despite state courts failure to indicate that its denial of petition rested on procedural grounds where petitioner never raised facially sufficient jury challenge before any state court and state courts denial of petition could not be construed as a decision on the merits holding that when there are federal law claims in a case also presenting state law claims the federal rule favoring admissibility  is the controlling rule the court found this approach consistent with the rule in federal practice disfavoring privileges not constitutionally based holding that there was not complete preemption because the applicable federal statute did not provide a private right of action to redress the same kind of injury alleged in the plaintiffs statelaw claims holding that though mississippi law governs the amount of the fee award here because the factors considered under state and federal law are nearly identical both state and federal cases are instructive