Court of Appeals noted petitioner’s failure to request specific instructions about his defense and his failure to object to the instruction when given the opportunity to do so. The Court of Appeals also ruled on the merits of petitioner’s claim. The Michigan Supreme Court then denied leave to appeal. Although petitioner subsequently raised the issue again in his motion for relief from judgment, the trial court declined to rule on the claim because the Court of Appeals had already addressed the issue. The state appellate courts declined to review petitioner’s collateral appeal. Thus, the last state court rendering a reasoned judgment on this issue denied relief, in part, because of the procedural default. See Ylst v. Nunnemaker, — U.S. —, —, 111 S.Ct. 2590, 2595, 115 L.Ed.2d 706 (1991) (<HOLDING>); McBee v. Grant, 763 F.2d 811, 813 (6th
holding that in construing statute courts must first look to its plain language holding that orders remanding an action to a federal agency are generally not considered final appealable orders holding that a court must look through unexplained orders to the last reasoned decision holding that court of appeals statutory jurisdiction over final orders of removal extends to reinstatement orders holding that court must look to statutory definition of acc a predicate offenses