decided by the state courts. Instead, a claim is exhausted if it was “fairly presented” to the state courts. Id. at 1231 (quoting Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 275, 92 S.Ct. 509, 30 L.Ed.2d 438 (1971)). This merely requires that the federal claim is the “substantial equivalent” of the claim brought in state court. Id. As the Third Circuit has repeatedly explained, in deciding whether a claim was fairly presented, a district court should look to “the substance of the claim presented to the state courts, rather than its technical designation.” Id. Even if the state court refuses to hear the claim presented because it is time-barred or waived, the claim is still exhausted as long as the state court is given the opportunity to address it. Bond v. Fulcomer, 864 F.2d 306, 309 (3d Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>). There is no doubt that Pursell has satisfied
holding that untimely petition for postconviction petition divests trial court of jurisdiction recognizing that issue exhaustion requirement and requirement exhaustion of remedies are different holding that presentation of an untimely petition to the states highest court satisfied the exhaustion requirement recognizing exception to the exhaustion doctrine where the states highest court has explicitly and recently addressed the precise issue advanced by the petitioner holding prisoners timebarred grievance satisfied plras exhaustion requirement when prisoner completed highest level of appeal available