13 to the Arkansas Supreme Court—which denied their motion—and never submitted their fee request to the trial court within the time period provided by ARK. R. CIV. P. 54(e). Now, committed to that course, Petitioners argue that the Arkansas Supreme Court was the proper court in which to file their fee motion and that their motion was timely filed. But that is incorrect as a matter of Arkansas law. Nevertheless, as explained below, even if the Arkansas Supreme Court were the proper court to consider Petitioners’ fee request, their motion was filed nineteen days late and that procedural default precludes any fee award. Yet no matter which of the various positions Petitioners have taken is correct, there is an adequate and independent state law ground accounting for the Arkansas Supreme Court’s denial of their motion for appellate fees. The Arkansas Supreme Court’s unreasoned denial of Petitioners’ motion following Petitioners’ procedural default does not mention federal law at all, let alone “fairly appear[ ]” to rest on it. Long, 463 U.S. at 1040. On the contrary, there is every reason to believe Petitioners’ motion was denied due to their state law procedural default, rather than on the federal law considerations governing the merits of their motion. For example, Respondent initially did not file a response to Petitioners’ fee motion in the Arkansas Supreme Court. Respondent subsequently requested leave to file a belated response to Petitioners’ motion and tendered his response disputing Petitioners’ fee request under the governing law. Rather than consider