Did the 5th Cir. Ct. ignore that Det. Mends inferences identified petitioner as in co-possession of recent stolen property and thus implicated petitioner's right to confront and examine Ms Young?

Did the 5th Cir. Ct. use the co-possession theory of the entire evidence to hold that the testimonial was harmless?

Did the Appellate Ct. of Tx. erroneously consolidate the eight appeal cases in one lump sum of probative evidence of guilt to hold the testimonial was harmless? (as oppose to rendering eight separate opinions and applying the harmless test to each opinion)

Since the state relied on a co-possession and the jury was not instructed under the law of parties - was petitioner illegally convicted for burglary under law of Louisiana stolen property?

Since 4:14-CV-146 is not time barred under 2254 d)(1)(A-D) and 2, and eight cause numbers were cited at Pg.2 Q.4, is petitioner permitted to challenge all of the eight cause numbers at once under 4:14-CV-146? Or is he only permitted to challenge F-08-1894-D at 4:14-CV-146?

Since F-08-1894-D is not time barred in 4:14-CV-146, is F-08-1894-D time barred?

Since F-08-1894-D was cited in all three federal habeas petitions and not time barred in 4:14-CV-146, does the latter rescue the Pg.2 Question 4?

Whether the petitioner's due process rights were violated when the state court failed to properly consider exculpatory evidence and testimony that would have established his innocence