addressed the merits of Mr. Duval’s claim under the plain error standard. “If a petitioner’s claim has procedurally defaulted, collateral review under § 2255 will be available only if the petitioner can show both (1) ‘cause’ for having procedurally defaulted his claim; and (2) ‘actual prejudice’ resulting from the alleged error.” Bucci 662 F.3d at 27 (quoting Frady, 456 U.S. at 167-68, 102 S.Ct. 1584). A procedural default may also be excused by a showing of actual innocence. Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614, 622, 118 S.Ct. 1604, 140 L.Ed.2d 828 (1998). A claim of actual innocence may only be addressed if a petitioner fails to overcome a procedural default through a showing of cause and prejudice. Dretke v. Haley, 541. U.S. 386, 393-94, 124 S.Ct. 1847, 158 L.Ed.2d 659 (2004) (<HOLDING>). Duval argues that if the claim is
holding that a federal court faced with allegations of actual innocence whether of the sentence or of the crime charged must first address all nondefaulted claims for comparable relief and other grounds for cause to excuse the procedural default holding that a federal court may excuse a state habeas petitioners procedural default if the petitioner can show cause for the failure to raise the claim and prejudice resulting from such failure holding that an ineffective assistance of counsel claim alleged to be cause for the procedural default of other claims is itself an independent claim subject to the procedural requirements of exhaustion holding that if a state court grants leave to pursue an out of time appeal the proper period of exclusion for  2244d purposes is all time between the filing of the request to excuse the default and the state courts decision on the merits if it elects to excuse the default holding that if the state court addresses both the procedural default and the merits of a federal claim in the alternative a federal court should apply the state procedural bar and decline to reach the merits of the claim