] on a federal constitutional ruling.” Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68, 75, 105 S.Ct. 1087, 84 L.Ed.2d 53 (1985). On appeal, Fisher asserts that the state court did not review and reject the claim based upon an “independent and adequate” state law ground and that, even if it did, he has shown cause and prejudice for the default. We reject both claims. A. We begin with Fisher’s assertion that the North Carolina state court did not reject his constitutional challenge to the jury instruction on the basis of an “independent and adequate” state law ground. At the outset, we point out that N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1419(a)(3) is generally an independent and adequate state law ground for finding that a claim has been procedurally defaulted. See Williams v. French, 146 F.3d 203, 209 (4th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1155, 119 S.Ct. 1061,
holding that rule 322a is an adequate and independent procedural bar holding that federal courts must defer to independent and adequate state procedural bars in reviewing  2254 petitions holding that section 34810 is an adequate and independent state ground 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   15a1419a3 is an independent and adequate state ground for a state courts finding of procedural default