exhaust state remedies due to nine year delay in state post-conviction proceedings; the panel stated that federal courts need not defer to the state judicial process when no appropriate remedy exists at the state level or when the state process would frustrate the use of an available remedy.Chacon v. Wood, 36 F.3d 1459, 1468 (9th Cir. 1994), New factual allegations supporting claim in federal court do not render a claim unexhausted unless they fundamentally alter the legal claim already considered by the state courts; here, allegation that interpreter intentionally misadvised petitioner did not fundamentally alter claim that petitioner was induced to plead guilty by grossly incorrect advice regarding the consequences of a guilty plea.Beauchamp v. Murphy, 37 F.3d 700, 704 (1st Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 115 S.Ct. 1365 (1995), Another good fair presentation case recognizing that state court would not have viewed the claim differently had the word "federal" appeared in the heading to the issue.Scarpa v. DuBois, 38 F.3d 1, 6 (1st Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 115 S.Ct. 940 (1995), Good discussion of fair presentation, discussing ways in which petitioner can fairly present claims to state courts including: citing a specific provision of the Constitution; alerting the state court to the claim's federal nature through the substance of the claim; relying on federal constitutional precedents; claiming a particular right guaranteed by the Constitution; and, asserting a state law claim that is "functionally identical" to a federal claim.Laswell v. Frey, 45 F.3d 1011, 1013-14 (6th Cir.), cert.