conveyed entirely through allusions and connotations.... If a party wants a state court to decide whether she was deprived of a federal constitutional right, she has to say so. It has to be clear from the petition filed at each level in the state court system that the petitioner is claiming the violation of the federal constitution that the petitioner subsequently claims in the federal habeas petition. That is, ‘the prisoner must fairly present his claim in each appropriate state court ... thereby alerting that court to the federal nature of claim.’ If she does not say so, then she does not ‘fairly present’ the federal claim to the state court. Galvan, 397 F.3d 1198, 1204 (9th Cir.2005) (citing Baldwin, 541 U.S. at 29-32, 124 S.Ct. 1347). See Baldwin, 541 U.S. at 29-32, 124 S.Ct. 1347 (<HOLDING>); Lyons, 232 F.3d at 668-70 (mere reference to
recognizing a constitutional claim for ineffective assistance of counsel holding that under oregon law a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel must be raised in the initial habeas proceeding recognizing that in order to prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel a movant must show that he was prejudiced by his counsels performance holding that ineffective assistance of counsel constitutes cause for procedural default only if counsels performance was constitutionally ineffective holding that habeas petitioner failed to fairly present a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel by merely labeling counsels performance as ineffective without any accompanying reference to federal law or to a citation to an opinion applying federal law