Whether the District Court judges order of denial, denying petitioner's habeas petition and grounds, to the Honorable Robert L. Windle aforementioned that the petitioner had the evidentiary foundation for the lesser included offense and that the petitioner was entitled to relief on the lesser of crime issue to the state courts ruling laws contrary to or involved an unreasonable application of long established federal law as acknowledged by the Supreme Court of the United States, but petitioner could lose his lesser included offense claim because Bake v. Alabama, 441 U.S. 036 (case) was not been extended to new habeas cases by the Supreme Court of the United States and since his case is now before the Eleventh Circuit Mikauegy Lolette Perry's what establish the sovereign will of the Circuit BEE Appendix (B)

If the District Court Judge determined that the petitioner was not entitled to relief under the ADERA, then that merely demonstrates that the trial court denied the petitioner his due process rights to standard jury instruction that lost current ed in the evidence adduced at trial case (trial transcript is pages 51-98) therefore, since the Third BEE and SR TH GH) Circuits was overheard their reasoning in Bake to non Carin pages, and is that it was constitutional error lost to sue in requested in lesser included offense lolteneven the evidence to could support a conviction under only the primary offense or all unstarred vessel included offense or both, could in it be a denial of the urges and be fundamental miscarriage of justice must to grant the petitioner relief on the lesser of offense claim.

Second, since the Iwantr GD CARLUIT HRS also recognized that the refusal by trial court to instruct a jury on lesser city cluded revs, lobe those offenses are consistency with acked wit § thorn of the case, wey constitute a cognizable habeas on a wdes cleanly established federal codes ud ot, Lexis) in Salis, HY F.rd BT Sa9y see wl Agadley v. Dumegam Ale Bad lo U, Lord CATH CIR. Foor, Dob SEE, Duke Te v. PERRIN, Slot FE. Suer, (S30, SILC Dit WY CST Cin 9493

(a)

(D) Since the failure of a state court to instruct the jury on lesser included offenses raises a question that is cognizable on habeas corpus review at the same circuit, since the failure to give the requested instruction could deprive the defendant of the fundamental right to be tried by jury as secured by the U.S. Constitution due process and the trial courts refusal of remedying the requested lesser included offense of a trial jury from the state and jury instruction, yet determines that the will mente added hit trial guidelined the lesser included offense clause in also tection demand seemed us constitutional rights to be trial under the due process clause (case TT, te, SE HD).

(E) The federal rules of criminal procedure and with lesser included offenses, see rule 3, bid the defendants right to such instruction was not recognized in numerous decisions of this court, see e.g., supreme we united cases FTO US. BME, BHA, FS SET. Uole, ood, WB Linked, Fd BEA CIVENTY WERWANL Lied States, BSL US. ASV VME TG S.0T O95, WO, too LEA, Lo GIs by GTevensone we ited States (WX U

Whether the district court judge's order of denial, denying the petitioner's habeas petition and claim, was contrary to or involved an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States