1) Whether the District Court's failure to address Petitioner's constitutional
claims, based on Giglio v. United States, 92 S.Ct. 763, 405 U.S. 150 (1972), as .
procedurally barred and/or successive, when it has been alleged that but for :
the constitutional error, no reasonable jurist could or would have found
Petitioner guilty, and/or, that the constitutional error resulted in the
conviction of one actually innocent of the charged crime, constitutes a
decision contrary to, or involving an unreasonable application of clearly,
established federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United
States, and/or results in a decision that is/was based on an unreasonable
determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the state court
proceedings, and/or is a fundamental miscarriage of justice. See Schlup v.
Delo, 518 U.S. 298 (1995); Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1 (2012); Giglio, supra.

2) Whether Petitioner provided substantial, un-refuted evidence that
demonstrates entitlement to a complete affirmative defense that would
render the charged conduct no-criminal, and satisfy the required showing of
actual innocence to allow consideration of constitutional claims procedurally
defaulted in state court, when the errors preclude conviction, where the
charging instrument fails to charge a crime, and/or, the state statute
Petitioner as charged with violating is unconstitutional on its face and as
applied.

3) Whether the courts failed to afford Petitioner procedural due process and the
opportunity to fully and fairly present and/or litigate his constitutional
claims by: 1) Denying the Petitioner's motion for pre-filing appointment of
counsel and ordering Petitioner to file his § 2254 petition within 14 days
contrary to the AEDPA's one-year allotment / limitation; 2) Assigning
petition to a Magistrate judge, then summarily denying without a report and
recommendation; 3) Failing to address Petitioner's inherent claims of actual
innocence and/or provide an evidentiary hearing; failing to review Petitioner's
case in accordance with Anders v. California; and 5) Adopting the state courts
findings without reviewing, independently, Petitioner's issues in light of
federal and constitutional law.

4) Whether ineffective assistance of Appellant counsel, due process violations
and clearly erroneous decisions of state post-conviction courts rendered
results of "Reviews", unfair, unreliable and in direct conflict with United
States Supreme Court precedent.

5) Whether in effective assistance of trial counsel, due process violations and
fundamental error occurred during state court trial and violated Petitioner's
constitutional rights and resulted in the conviction and sentence of one
actually innocent of the charged crime.

Whether the lower court erred in its application of the legal standard for determining the existence of a constitutional violation