1- DID THE US. FIFTH CIRCUIT CV. OF APPEALS ENTER A DICISION DEPARTING FROM THE ACCEPTED AND USUAL COURSE OF SUDICIAL PROCEEDING BY INVERTING JHE STATUTORY ORDEFe OF OPERIWION BY DECIDING JHE MERLIS OF THE SUPERL AND THEN DENYING THE COA AND EVIDENTIARY HERRINE BASED DN ADSUbICATION OF JHE ACTUAL MEPIS, IS 70 CALE FoR AN EXERCISE OF THIS COURTS SUPERVIS ORY fowER ?

2- HAS THE STATE COURT CF LAST RESORT DEC(DED AX — YMPORTANT FEDERAL QUESTION (Nh LAY JUAT CONFLICTS WITH A DECIS/ON OF A US. COURT OF APPEALS, MAMELY (NV BEPIANE Yo SCOTT 28 F SE IT CET cik 1999), BS TO CALL FOR AN EXERCISE OF THIS 2OURTS "SUPERVISORY POUJER &

3- WAS A tuS. COURT OF APPEMS DECIDED AH /MPORTANT FEDERAL QUESTION (MN A AAS JHAT CONFLICTS wisi RELEVENT DECISIONS OF FHIS Coury, NAMECESY Buck V DAVIS 137 SUP CT C3101 2)5 AND STRICKLAND WASH INGIDM, OF SUP.Ch IED: AS TO CALL FOR AN EXERCISE OF THIS COURTS SUPER visoky PowEl §& .

4- HAS A STAVE Coury DECIDED AW (MIPORVHMY T QUESTION THAT HAS OV BEEN BUT SHOULD BE SEITC ED BY THIS COURT, OF WHEY HER (QEDPA'S) LYAUT ON FCI, REVISE) OF STATE DECISIONS AN FEDERAL PACT DEVECOLMEWT COMBINED COTM PRA CTILALLE NON > EXISVENT FACT DEVECOP/SIENT PROCEDURES ON SYAVE HABEAS AbUNTS FR. AN LUNCONSVIVUTIONAL Stls PENSION OF FHE CRIT £

5- WAS A STATE CourT DECIDED AN (PORTANT QUESTION THAT HAS NOT BEEN BUT SHOULD BE SEVHME BY VIS COURT LUAEXKE A FUN DAIAEN TAL A115 CAWLUMAEE OF TOLS FICE REEULTEL LM A CONVICTION, OF FET Y (ONC LdHO US ACTUALLY JMAOCENT ©

6- HAS A STATE CourT DECIDED AN MPORTANT FEDERAL QUESTION IN A WAY THAT CONFEL/CTS B/TE RELEVANT DECISION OF THUS COURT NAMELY ~~ CHAPMAN V_CALIFORMIA. B72 SUP: Ch, C1962) AS TO CALL FOR AN EXERCISE OF TH)S couriTs Sy PERWSORY POWER F

Whether the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals erred in inverting the statutory order of operation by deciding the merits of the appeal and then denying the COA and evidentiary hearing based on adjudication of the actual merits