In Chaidez v. United States, 133 S.Ct. 1103 (Feb. 20, 2013), the court stated:

FN16. Chaidez makes two back-up arguments in her merits briefs"that Teague's bar on retroactivity does not apply when a petitioner challenges a federal conviction, or at least does not do so when she makes a claim of ineffective assistance. Brief for Petitioner 27"39. But Chaidez did not include those issues in her petition for certiorari. Nor, still more critically, did she adequately raise them in the lower courts. Only her petition for rehearing en banc in the Seventh Circuit at all questioned Teague 's applicability, and her argument there"that a Teague-light standard should apply to challenges to federal convictions"differs from the ones she has made in this Court. See Petition for Rehearing and for Rehearing En Banc in No. 10"3623(CA7), p. 13. Moreover, we cannot find any case in which a federal court has considered Chaidez's contention that Teague should not apply to ineffective assistance claims. [M]indful that we are a court of review, not of first view, we decline to rule on Chaidez's new arguments. Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709, 718, n. 7, 125 S.Ct. 2113, 161 L.Ed.2d 1020 (2005).