to be reserved for clemency actions. See Herrera, 506 U.S. at 417, 113 S.Ct. 853 (acknowledging that the traditional remedy for claims of actual innocence based on late findings of newly-discovered evidence has been executive clemency); Royal v. Taylor, 188 F.3d 239, 243 (4th Cir.1999) (“[WJhen available, state clemency proceedings provide the proper forum to pursue claims of actual innocence based on new facts.”) The argument that clemency is the proper course to pursue using newly-discovered evidence still supports Cherrix’s claims for DNA testing. Section 848(q) of Title 21 of the United States Code encompasses claims for a habeas petitioner’s compensation of fees incurred during Virginia state clemency proceedings. See Strickler v. Greene, 57 F.Supp.2d 313, 317-18 (E.D.Va.1999) (<HOLDING>); see also Hill v. Lockhart, 992 F.2d 801, 803
holding that personal injury settlement proceeds are disposable income to the extent that they are not reasonably necessary for the support of the debtors holding that  848q allows funding for services that are reasonably necessary in the habeas petitioners pursuit of clemency from the governor of virginia holding that habeas petitioner scheduled to be executed in the state of virginia for capital murder could not raise claim of violation of his rights under the vienna convention on federal habeas review where he failed to preserve the claim by raising it in state court proceedings vienna convention does not trump subsequent federal statute requiring habeas petitioners who claim to be held in violation of treaties of the united states to develop factual bases for their claims in state court as a precondition of federal habeas review holding that the federal role in reviewing an application for habeas corpus is limited to evaluating what occurred in the state or federal proceedings that actually led to the petitioners conviction what occurred in the petitioners collateral proceeding does not enter into the habeas proceeding holding habeas petitioners may show cause for such default in specific circumstances in states that require petitioners to raise iatc claims in initial state habeas proceedings rather than on direct appeal