set forth in the memorandum opinion issued this date, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Petitioner Emmanuel Rodgers’ application for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is DISMISSED and the relief requested therein is DENIED. (D.I. 3) 2. Petitioner’s motion for transcripts (D.I. 22) and motion for summary judgment (D.I. 23) are DENIED as moot. 3. The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). 2 . To the extent that claim one merely criticizes the Superior Court's application of Rule 61 and its determination that his Rule 61 motion was time-barred, the court concurs with the State’s assertion that claim one does not present an issue cognizable on federal habeas review. See Hassine v. Zimmerman, 160 F.3d 941, 954 (3d Cir.l998)(<HOLDING>) (emphasis in original); see also Lambert v.
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 that federal habeas corpus relief does not lie for errors of state law holding that once federal jurisdiction has attached it is not defeated by the petitioners release prior to completion of the proceedings on his habeas application holding federal habeas proceeding was properly dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies when petitioners direct appeal from resentencing was still pending in state court at the time he sought habeas relief 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