The untrained pro se Appellant respectfully attempts to succinctly present from the trial record, compelling justiciable Constitutional reasons of error for the Writ to issue in this exceptional No-CrIME case of AcTUAL INNOCENCE involving an Accidental Self-Induced Drug Overdose Death, as Law and Justice would require. (28 U.S.C. § 2243).

The 1-28-19 wholly obscure one-line Court of Appeals ignored denials, thoroughly departed from any accepted course of Jurisprudence norms, in direct CoNFLIcT with this Court's controlling precedents, emphatically calling for the attended exercise of Certiorari authority to resolve these Conflicting Judicial abuses.(App.1a)

1. Does the Appellate Court's obscure Panel Denials, violate the 1996 A.E.D.P.A. Constitutional Due Process Question in Conflict with the Certiorari Decisions of this Court in (1), Castro v. U.S., 540 U.S. 375 (2002), and (2), in Panetti v. Quarterman, 551 U.S. 930 (2007), NoN-SUCCESSIVENESS precedents, where upon § 2253 C.0.A.'s issued, prohibited § 2254 District and Appellate Courts from wrongly creating ". . . Troublesome Results . . . ", " .. . Procedural Anomalies . . . "; ' .. . Closing Courtroom Doors. ...", contrary to Congress intent? (pp. 8-10)

Did the Court of. Appeals Panel further deny 22 U.S.C. § 2253 C.O.A. in Conflict of this Court's controlling ". . . . ACTUAL INNOCENCE . . ." A.E.D.P.A. " ... Gateway Exception ..." substantive Habeas Mandate of McQuiggin v. Perkins, 569 U.S. 383 (2013), overruling Troublesome Results and Procedural Anomalies, wrongly Closing Courtroom Doors denying Habeas relief?

2. Did the Appellate Panel's obscure Denials, violate the Constitutional JEOPARDy Question of "DIrecT EstoppeL Issue PrecLusion Law, concerning Nebraska's uncontroverted, No-PROBATIVE-EvIDENCE Directed Verdicts of the alternative Felony Murder charge and all its underlying "ATTEMPTED" foreclosed Acquitted Motive offenses, in Conflict with this Court's and its own Circuit Court's Stare Decisis Directed Verdict Acquittal precedents?

3. Does Appellate Panel's obscure Denials, violate compelling Constitutional Questions of Law in Conflict with Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), substantial Trial safeguards upon State suppressed material and exculpatory vital evidence, diligently uncovered, that should have resulted in a very different outcome upon a confident verdict by an untainted Jury?

4. Does Appellate Panel's obscure Denials, violate compelling Constitutional Questions of Law, separate and apart from the forestated Trial errors, of INEFFECTIVENESS of Trial and Appellate Counsel's deficient prejudicial performances denying a fair trial, in utter conflict with this Court's and its own Circuit Court's controlling Ineffectiveness prece

Does the Appellate Court's obscure Panel denials violate the 1996 A.E.D.P.A. Constitutional Due Process Question in Conflict with the Certiorari Decisions of this Court?