WHETHER THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION'S RESTRICTIONS ON MR. LONG'S EXECTUION WITNESS AND REFUSING TO ALLOW HIM TO HAVE A NON-CLERGYMAN AS HIS SECOND WITNESS VIOLATES THE FIRST, FIFTH, SIXTH, AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUION?

WHETHER THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT DECISION HOLDING MR. LONG IS NOT ENTILTED TO A NEW PENATLY PHASE PURSUANT TO HURST v. FLORIDA AND HURST v. STATE VIOLATES THE SIXTH, EIGHTH, AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS WHERE THE DENIAL OF RELIEF IS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS AND CAUSES DISPARATE TREATMENT BETWEEN SIMILARLY SITUATED DEFENDANTS?

WHETHER THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT DECISION UPHOLDING MR. LONG'S EXECUTION WITH ETOMIDATE AND HOLDING THAT MR. LONG WAS NOT ENTITLED TO AN EVIDENTAIRY HEARING ON THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF FLORIDA'S LETHAL INJECTION PROTOCOL AND DENYING HIM THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT EVIDENCE NOT PREVIOUSLY CONSIDERED BY THE STATE COURTS OF FLORIDA RESULTED IN A VIOLATION OF THE FIFTH, EIGHTH, AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION?

WHETHER MR. LONG'S EXECTUION AFTER THIRTY YEARS ON DEATH ROW CONSTITUTES CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT UNDER THE EIGHT H AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION?

Whether the Florida Department of Correction's restrictions on Mr. Long's execution witness and refusing to allow him to have a non-clergyman as his second witness violates the First, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments