Whether the Third Circuit was in error in not issuing a Certificate of
Appealability on the merits of Pro Se petitioner's arguments.
Specifically, whether there was a Constitutional violation that would
qualify petitioner's claim of actual innocence.

Whether petitioner has met his burden established in McQuiggan v.
Perkins, 569. U.S.2013, in as much as petitioner has established that
a Constitutional violation occurred, namely a Brady violation, as it
relates to discoverable material that the Commonwealth's attorney failed
to turn over during the course of petitioner's first trial. This being a
prerequisite to a claim of actual innocence.

Whether in denying to issue a COP the Third Circuit Court of Appeals
created a harmful error that puts petitioner out of court on unresolved
claims that were not addressed. Specifically, whether petitioner's newly
discovered Brady material, when taken in the light most favorable, would
have led a reasonable fact-finder to have reasonable doubt in the verdict
of petitioner's trial.

Whether the Third Circuit was in error in not issuing a Certificate of Appealability on the merits of Pro Se petitioner's arguments