(1) Whether a federal appellate court can substantially change its prior judgment to intentionally sabotage a petitioner being able to file a subsequent habeas petition; changing its decision from:

"[R]easonable jurists could not debate the correctness of the district court's ruling that Brooks had failed to exhaust his state remedies." Brooks v. Archuleta, 681 Fed. Appx. 705, 706 (loth Cir. 2017);

To:

"No reasonable jurist could debate the district court's dismissal on procedural grounds." Brooks v. Hanson, 741 Fed. Appx. 599, 600 (10tI Cir. 2018)?

(2) Whether the egregious, ever changing reasoning by the Tenth Circuit to preclude having to rule on the merits of Petitioners habeas corpus application is in direct conflict with this Court's precedent set in Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000).

Whether a federal court substantially changing its prior holding improperly deprived petitioner of adequate appellate review?

(3) Whether Rules 35(c)(3)(VI) and (VII) of the Colorado Rules of Criminal Procedure and Cob. Rev. Stat. § 16-5-402 are independent and adequate state grounds to deny federal habeas relief and whether the Tenth Circuit's decision in this case in in direct conflict with Cone v. Bell, 556 U.S. 449 (2009)?

Whether a federal appellate court can substantially change its prior judgment to intentionally sabotage a petitioner being able to file a subsequent habeas petition