10 compliance with the 14 day deadline to file fee motions contained in Rule 54(e)” because it was filed fourteen days after that court’s mandate issued. Supp. App. 32. Petitioners’ motion for partial reconsideration was denied on March 30, 2018. Order, Pulaski Cty., Ark. Cir. Ct., No. 60CV-15-3153 (Mar. 30, 2018). Petitioners filed this Petition on April 4, 2018. ------------------------------------------------------------------ REASONS FOR DENYING THE PETITION I. This Court does not review a decision of a state court when that decision rests on a state law ground, rather than federal law. “This Court will not review a question of federal law decided by a state court if the decision of that court rests on a state law ground that is independent of the federal question and adequate to support the judgment.” Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 729 (1991). “This rule applies whether the state law ground is substantive or procedural.” Id. “In the context of direct review of a state court judgment,” this doctrine is “jurisdictional” because “resolution of any independent federal ground . . . would . . . be advisory.” Id. In some cases where questions of both state and federal law are decided by a state court, it is difficult to discern whether a state court’s decision rested on federal or state law. In cases where “a state court decision fairly appears to rest primarily on federal law,” this Court will presume it rested solely on federal law,