admissions at his guilty plea, the transcripts presented in the petition, and the sealed portions of Judge Casey’s opinion are sufficient to reject the petitioner’s claim of innocence. Indeed, the petitioner has presented nothing to undercut the Court of Appeals conclusion: “Based on our examination of the record, including the sealed portions of the District Court’s opinion, we conclude that Judge Casey correctly rejected [the petitioner’s] claim of actual innocence.” Garafola, 292 Fed. Appx. at 139. Because the petitioner is unable to establish “cause and prejudice” or “actual innocence,” the petitioner is precluded from raising his judicial abuse of discretion and prosecutorial misconduct claims in his § 2255 motion. See Suh v. Pierce, 630 F.3d 685, 690-91 (7th Cir.2011) (<HOLDING>); Tai-Nan v. Wilson, 336 Fed.Appx. 256, 262 (3d
holding prosecutorial misconduct claim barred by procedural default holding judicial recusal claim barred because of procedural default 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 the novelty of a petitioners claim can constitute cause for a procedural default holding that default termination is government claim