14 Respondent’s position on Petitioners’ fee motion, the Arkansas Supreme Court denied Respondent’s request to file a belated response. Supp. App. 2a. Moreover, the court denied Petitioners’ motion before Petitioners were required to submit timesheets and other evidence in support of their fee request. Thus, the court had no basis for evaluating whether the estimated fee requested by Petitioners was reasonable under federal law. Given those circumstances, it is inappropriate to simply assume—as Petitioners must in seeking this Court’s review—that the Arkansas Supreme Court’s order denying fees rested on federal law considerations absent from the face of the Arkansas Supreme Court’s order and which it appears that the court never considered. Instead, it is clear that decision rested on state law. Because the Arkansas Supreme Court’s decision is supported by the adequate and independent state law ground of Petitioners’ procedural default, this Court should deny the petition for lack of jurisdiction. See N.C.P. Mktg. Grp., Inc. v. BG Star Prods., Inc., 129 S. Ct. 1577, 1578 (2009) (statement of Kennedy, J., respecting the denial of certiorari) (even where a petition for certiorari raises an important question of federal law, it is not a suitable case for resolution of that question if it would require the Court to “resolve . . . antecedent questions under state law”); Ylst v. Nunnemaker, 501 U.S. 797, 801 (1991) (“When a state-law default prevents the state court from reaching the merits of a federal claim, that claim can ordinarily not be reviewed in federal court.”); Wolf v. Weinstein, 372 U.S. 633, 636