court, we conclude that Petitioner is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for failure to assert that trial counsel operated under a prejudicial conflict of interest. A. Diligence in pursuing the factual basis for his claims AEDPA precludes a federal habeas court from conducting an evidentiary hearing on a claim that the habeas petitioner failed to develop in state court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2); see also Bryan, 335 F.3d at 1214. But “a failure to develop the factual basis of a claim is not established unless there is lack of diligence, or some greater fault, attributable to the prisoner or the prisoner’s counsel.” Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 420, 432, 120 S.Ct. 1479, 146 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000); see also Miller, 161 F.3d at 1253 (<HOLDING>). “Diligence ... depends upon whether the
holding that an evidentiary hearing may be used to develop the factual basis of a prisoner complaint holding that when a petitioner seeks an evidentiary hearing in state court to develop the factual basis of a claim but the state court denies such a hearing entitlement to a federal court hearing is analyzed pursuant to preaedpa law rather than the standards set out in  2254e2 holding federal evidentiary hearing not statutorily barred when petitioner had sought to develop factual basis for claim in state court holding that habeas claim not included in petition and never raised by petitioner before the district court as basis for habeas relief is procedurally defaulted holding that  2254e2 does not apply where the petitioner diligently sought to develop the factual basis underlying his habeas petition but a state court prevented him from doing so