ThESE questions suggest to this Court, its interpretation of Abuse of the writ doctrine should not be contined to HAbeAS Corpus prOcEdures void on its tAce of a Constitutional Rule of Court.

1. WhEthEr Boykin v. AlAbAmA, 395 U.5. 238 11969), is A Constitutionel Rule of Court, mandated on U.s. District Courts or merely the exerCise of its supervisory 04 requlate EvIDENCE in thE AbsENCE of-CongrESsional to direction?

2. WhEthEr petition is procedurally BAEd AS A SUCCESSIE petition, it original hAbEAS corpus hAbEAS COMPUES POLESE of the Constitutional Absence WAS reqUirement mAndated in Bin .Al, 395 a5. 238 19, to meet Substantive due process of lAw within Federal R.Crim.P. Rule 1?

3). Whether A initiel hAbens corpus PROCEDURE thAt wAS void on its Fce of its ConstitutiONAl requirement under WOlATiDE of tHE U.S. Boykin v. AlabAmA WAS Constitution 5th Amendment due process a ClAusE?

4. Whether Constitutionally required Evidence that petitioner wAs convicted proot without proves beyond a rensonable doubt, satisties substantial showing of the denial of A Constitational fight?

5). Whether hAbEAS corpuS procedUre that is void U on its Face of A Constitutional requirement considered A PlAin Enor FEd. P. (rim.P. 52(b)? under

6. WhEthEr cortiticate of AppEAlABILity a should issue, prytns of paty when the United States District Court the sstitaton whi procig A Brginl hAbes cos petition?

Whether Boukin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (1969), is a Constitutional Rule of Court, mandated on the District Court or merely the exercise of its supervisory authority to require Evidence in the absence of Congressional direction