to Frame, the Massachusetts Appeals 4 L.Ed.2d 805 (1978). See Pet’r’s Mem.Ex. A at 25, 26. Finally, he appended to the FAR petition the Massachusetts Appeals Court decision which specifically addressed the Frame issue and cited both feder Scarpa, earlier state court filings by a habeas petitioner necessarily focus the lens through which later filings have to be viewed. See Scar-pa, 38 F.3d at 7. Here, this Court views Davis’ FAR petition in light of his new trial motion and intermediate appellate court brief fully elucidating the Frame issue. As to Davis’ appending the Massachusetts Appeals Court decision to the FAR petition, however, it is true that mere attachment does not incorpof ate all of the arguments addressed in the decision into the FAR petition. See Mele, 850 F.2d at 823 (<HOLDING>). But here, where Davis has demonstrated that
holding that when an appellant fails to offer an argument on an issue that issue is abandoned holding that the court has discretion not to consider an issue abandoned on appeal holding an issue listed in statement of issues on appeal but not addressed in brief is abandoned holding that where petitioner otherwise wholly abandoned issue in the far petitions body merely appending massachusetts appeals court decision which addressed issue was insufficient recognizing that no federal circuit has addressed the issue