1. According to the pro se petitioner's undisputed affidavit filed in the district court, he did not know about the habeas corpus statute of limitations in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1) because a prison law library clerk, who controlled access to all law library materials, told him there was no statute of limitations, refused to provide any materials that contradicted that statement, and also told Petitioner that he was better served by waiting to find another inmate who could help him prepare the best federal habeas petition possible because he could file only one federal habeas petition and he is serving a life sentence. Appendix D. Petitioner relied on that advice because he had no reason to believe otherwise and thus filed his federal habeas petition after the statute of limitations would have expired if it began under § 2244(d)(1)(A)(upon the conclusion of the time for seeking direct review) but within the statute of limitations if it began under § 2244(d)(1)(B)(when an unconstitutional impediment created by state action that prevents filing is removed) because the law clerk's advice, combined Petitioner's lack of access to legal materials that could have dispelled that advice, constituted an unconstitutional impediment to filing. Where the habeas corpus statute of limitations begins to run on "the latest of" the dates listed in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A)-(D), could reasonable jurists debate the district court's ruling -- and, thus, should a certificate of appealability have been issued under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) -- where the district court held that the statute of limitations began to run in this case under § 2244(d)(1)(A) and not under § 2244(d)(1)(B)

2. Assuming the habeas corpus statute of limitations began under § 2244(d)(1)(A) and, therefore, the habeas petition is untimely, could reasonable jurists debate (and thus should a certificate of appealability have been issued) whether Respondent should be equitably estopped from asserting a statute of limitations defense based on her agent's (the law library clerk's) actions that caused the untimely filing?

3. Could reasonable jurists debate (and therefore should a certificate of appealability have been issued) whether the undisputed facts described above entitle Petitioner to equitable tolling of the statute of limitations?

Whether the pro se petitioner's lack of knowledge about the habeas corpus statute of limitations due to the prison law library clerk's misleading statements should equitably toll the statute of limitations under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)