rejecting a federal claim, later unexplained orders upholding that judgment or rejecting the same claim rest upon the same ground.” 501 U.S. 797, 803, 111 S.Ct. 2590, 115 L.Ed.2d 706 (1991). The Court explained that in the context of a summary affirmance, “silence implies consent”; appellate courts generally “affirm[] without further discussion when they agree, not when they disagree, with the reasons given below.” Id. at 804, 111 S.Ct. 2590. In short, “[t]he essence of unexplained orders is that they say nothing. We think that a presumption which gives them no effect— which simply ‘looks through’ them to the last reasoned decision — -most nearly reflects the role they are ordinarily intended to play.” Id.; see also Glock v. Singletary, 65 F.3d 878, 882 n. 4 (11th Cir.1995) (en banc) (<HOLDING>); Harmon v. Barton, 894 F.2d 1268, 1273 (11th
holding that court may address procedurally defaulted claim on the merits where it is more efficient to do so holding that the convention claim was procedurally defaulted holding that when a creditor files a proof of claim the bankruptcy court has core jurisdiction to determine that claim even if it was a prepetition contract claim arising under state law holding that we cannot avoid ruling on a claim a petitioner has procedurally defaulted if the government has waived the procedural default defense for that claim holding that when the last state court to consider the claim summarily denies relief we look to the last state court to address the claim to determine if it considered the claim procedurally defaulted