365, 115 S.Ct. 887, 130 L.Ed.2d 865, (1995) (internal quotation marks omitted). Unexhausted claims may be procedurally defaulted. See, e.g., Reese v. Baldwin, 282 F.3d 1184, 1190 (9th Cir.2002). A claim is procedurally defaulted “if the petitioner failed to exhaust state remedies and the court to which the petitioner would be required to present his claims in order to meet the exhaustion requirement would now find the claims procedurally barred.” Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 735 n. 1, 111 S.Ct. 2546, 115 L.Ed.2d 640 (1991). If Beaty has any unexhausted claims, he has procedurally defaulted them, because he is now time-barred under Arizona law from going back to state court. See Ariz. R.Crim. P. 32.2(a); see also Stewart v. Smith, —U.S. —, 122 S.Ct. 2578, 153 L.Ed.2d 762 (2002) (<HOLDING>). Properly exhausted claims may also be
holding that section 34810 is an adequate and independent state ground holding that procedural bar rule does not apply to ineffectiveness claims holding that federal review of claims is barred where those claims have been defaulted in state court pursuant to an independent and adequate state procedural rule unless the petitioner can demonstrate cause and prejudice holding that   15a1419a3 is an independent and adequate state ground for a state courts finding of procedural default holding that rule 322a is an adequate and independent procedural bar