foreclose review of a federal constitutional claim.” Ibid, (quoting Jacobs, 265 F.3d at 417). Each of these three conditions is satisfied here. Ohio’s procedural rule of res judicata provides that all claims must be raised on direct appeal, and may not be saved for collateral review, unless “facts necessary to develop a claim were [not] available on direct appeal____” Abshear v. Moore, 354 Fed.Appx. 964, 967 (6th Cir.2009) (citing cases); see also Eley, 604 F.3d at 965. Baker failed to comply with this rule. His initial appeal did not invoke Blakely at all, and his Rule 26(B) application to reopen alleged only ineffective assistance of appellate counsel premised on failure to argue Blakely, rather than a substantive Blakely claim. See Davie v. Mitchell, 547 F.3d 297, 312 (6th Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>); Abshear, 354 Fed.Appx. at 968 (holding that
holding that a rule 26b application based on ineffective assistance cannot function to save the underlying substantive claim from procedural default internal quotation marks omitted holding that conspiracy to commit a particular substantive offense cannot exist without at least the degree of criminal intent necessary for the substantive offense itself internal quotation marks omitted holding that supervisory liability under  1983 must be based on active unconstitutional behavior and cannot be based upon a mere failure to act internal quotation marks omitted recognizing that the declaratory judgment act is only procedural and does not create substantive rights internal quotation marks and citations omitted holding that an ineffective assistance of counsel claim alleged to be cause for the procedural default of other claims is itself an independent claim subject to the procedural requirements of exhaustion