1.) Whether ding he tiaevieoce gertd by federal proedural and substantive de proces of law preseribed particubarly by the 7rotected liberty interest in 28 u.r.c.$ 2244(Xi)(A) of "mirdating" the state's prohibito the state in the continual libel,1 conclusion of direct review "a8" 7/2/3, tor the state' benetit of time-bar. whico as a moteecor reporedy h t denl th rt criminal appeal petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Nevada on" October 15, 20B", U.S. c25e 10. 13-6031. (ree APPENDIx c)(Cert Denied) result in peidice to peitineri Libeity iinteresty

2.) whether the libel,2 resulting in an unwarranted denial of a timely state section 2244(dX1)(A) poot habers action, demonstrater god aause and excuse to overcome the time-bar currently inposed, when the Jupreme Court of Nerad individually caused the state-imposed impediment, is the external fre,therefore warraning th ga f th ofi wn

Whether rights generated by federal procedural and substantive due-process prohibit the state from concluding direct review