1.)THE IOWA STATE COURT DECISION IN STATE V. HEEMSTRA, THAT IT IS AN INTERPRETATION OF THE STATUTE IS CONTRARY TO THE DECISION IN STATE V. GOOSMAN, THAT HEEMSTRA INVOL'VES A CHANGE IN CAW AND NOT A MERE CLARIFICATION. THE DECISION IN STATE V. HEEMSTRA IS AL'SO CONTRARY TO CCEARL'Y ESTABL'ISHED UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT DECISION(S) IN UNITED STATES V. BOUSL'EY AND RIVERS V. ROADWAY EXPRESS, INC. REGARDING IT'S STATUTORY INTERPRETATION"S DEGREE OF RETROACTIVITY AS IT SPRUNG FROM A CONSTITUTIONAL'L'Y DEFECTIVE FELONY.MUDER JURY INSTRUCTION THAT IN ESSENCE VIOLATED THE FOURTEENTH'AMENDMENT GUARANTEE TO DUE PROCESS AND EQUA L PROTECTION OF THE IJAW. HENCE, MR' JAMES WAS DENIED THESE CONSTITUTIONAL! GUARANTEES, THUS THIS DECI SION RESUL'TED IN A FUNDAMENTAL MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE.

2.)MR. JAMES' FEDERAL' CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS WAS VIOLATED BECAUSE THE INSTRUCTIONS GIVEN AT HIS TRIAL', AND THE GENERAL VERDICT FORM, PERMITTED THE JURY TO CONVICT HIM OF FIRST-DEGREE MURDER AND/OR FELONY MURDER WITHOUT A FINDING AND/OR A SEPERATE FINDING OF THE ESSENTIAL' ELEMENTS ESTABL'ISHING FIRST-DEGREE MURDER(WIL'L'FUL'LY , WITH SPECIFIC INTENT) NOR A FINDING OF THE PREDICATE OFFENSE ESTABL'ISHING FEL'ONY MURDER (WIL'L'FUL INJURY OR TERRORISM). THUS, POSSIBL'Y RESTING HIS CONVICT- ION ON A PREDICATE FEL'ONY WHICH IS NOT FORCIBLE FEL'ONY(TERRORISM). THEREFORE, IT IS IMPOSSIBL'E TO DETERMINE WHAT THE JURY UNANIMOUSLY AGREED MR. JAMES IS GUILTY OF, OR IF HIS CONVICTION RESTS UPON A THEORY CONTAINING LEGAL' ERROR, RESUL'TING IN A FUNDAMENTAL' MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE.

3.)THE UNITED STATES DISTRffT COURT'S "DISCUSSION OF APPL'ICABL'E CAW" RUL'ING ON MR. JAMES' PETITION STANDS IN CONTRADICTION TO WHAT THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT AL'L'OWED IN DEJONG V. NEBRASKA UNDER 28 U.S.0 2254(d)(1). AND THE "FACTUAL' PREDICATE" ASPECT OF THAT RUL'ING DECLARING THE IOWA COURT DECISION IN STATE V. HEEMSTRA TO BE "A CHANGE IN THE INTERPRETATION OF CAW" IS NOT ONL'Y A RENDERING CONTRARY TO THAT IN STATE V. GOOSMAN, IT AL'SO SETS FORTH AN INNOVATIVE AND UNPRECEDENTED ADJUDICATION BY A HIGHER COURT POTENTIAL'L'Y SETTL'ING THE DISAGREEMENT AND SUPPORTING MR. JAMES' ARGUEMENT THAT HEEM

Whether the Iowa state court decision in State v. Heemstra, that it is an interpretation of the statute, is contrary to the decision in State v. Goosman, that Heemstra involves a change in law and not a mere clarification, and is also contrary to clearly established United States Supreme Court decisions in United States v. Bousley and Rivers v. Roadway Express, Inc. regarding its statutory interpretation's degree of retroactivity