external factor was responsible for his failure to raise his present claims in the earlier petition. The court finds that Arm-stead’s failure to raise the issues contained in the present petition amounts to inexcusable neglect. Thus, under McCleskey, supra, Armstead cannot establish the necessary cause to justify his failure to raise his claims in the earlier habeas petition. Further, because Armstead cannot establish the necessary cause, the court need not reach the question of whether Armstead can establish actual prejudice under the Wainwright standard. Smith v. Murray, 477 U.S. 527, 533, 106 S.Ct. 2661, 2665-66, 91 L.Ed.2d 434 (1986); Buelow v. Dickey, 847 F.2d 420, 425 (7th Cir.1988), cert. denied sub nom., Buelow v. Bablitch, 489 U.S. 1032, 109 S.Ct. 1168, 103 L.Ed.2d 227 (1989) (<HOLDING>). The Supreme Court of the United States has
holding that the ij and bia did not err in addressing only one prong of the kaplun test because the petitioners failure to meet either prong is dispositive holding that a petitioners inability to demonstrate either prong of the wainwright test results in dismissal of the habeas petition before the merits of the claims can be reached holding that a habeas corpus petitioner who did not raise an ineffective assistance claim in his first state habeas petition satisfied the cause prong of the cause and prejudice test when counsel on the first state habeas petition was also trial counsel whose performance was allegedly inadequate holding that section 236e does not strip the court of jurisdiction to consider the merits of petitioners habeas corpus petition holding the burden is on the defendant to demonstrate the error satisfies each prong of the plain error test