a finding of procedural default. See, e.g., Ruiz v. Quarterman, 504 F.3d 523, 532 (5th Cir. 2007). Moreover, the State of Texas cannot insulate itself from its constitutional obligations under Panetti by erecting arbitrary procedural barriers to the presentation of such claims. Once petitioner made the threshold showing of insanity, it was incumbent upon the state habeas trial court to accord petitioner an opportunity to be heard. Instead, the state habeas trial court denied petitioner’s requests for appointment of counsel, for appointment of a mental health expert, and for an opportunity to present evidence and be heard on the merits of his Ford/Panetti claim in a manner that satisfied the Supreme Court’s procedural holding in Panetti. See Panetti, 551 U.S. at 952, 127 S.Ct. at 2858 (<HOLDING>). Where, as was also true in Panetti’s ease,
holding ford requires at a minimum that a court allow a prisoners counsel the opportunity to make an adequate response to evidence solicited by the state court holding that due process requires at a minimum an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner holding that an issue was not properly before the court on appeal because the trial court did not have the opportunity to make any findings of fact regarding it holding that preservation for review requires a fair ruling or decision by the district court in order to provide the lower court with an opportunity to correct any mistake give the opposing party an opportunity to demonstrate why the district court should rule in its favor and create a record which enables this court to make informed decisions holding that there was adequate opportunity when state court judicial review of an administrative proceeding was available