1) Whether Applicant is entitled to a certificate of appealability or review by the Supreme Court when the Court of Appeals departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial procee dings of governed law in determining whether to grant his C 0 A , by not considering the elements of the district court's appli cation of A.E . D.P:A to Applicant's constitutional claims to determine whether that resolution was debatable amongst jurists of reason?

2) Whether 28 U.S.C. § 2254(f) modified 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1)'s presumption of correctness afforded to § 2254(d)(2) 's standard, to grant Applicant relief under § 2254(d)(1) and (d)(2) when Applicant challenged the state court's discrete explicit eviden tiary findings of fact and conclusions of mixed fact and law as being deficient which, left"unresolved 'insufficient evidence adduced in the state habeas proceeding to support the state court's determination of factual issues regarding his constitu tional claims?

3) Whether the district court abused its discretion in failing. to duly follow and act upon the instructions outlined in 28 U.S.C. § 2254(f) regarding Applicant's sufficiency of the evidence chal lenge to the state court's determination of factual issues per taining to his constitutional claims to entitle him to relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1) and (d)(2)?

4.) Whether the district court and state court standard of review application of 'Strickland \l. Washington contrary to, and involved an objectively unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States, under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1), and objectively unreasonable based the facts and circumstances in light of the evidence presented on in State habeas court proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(2), to entitle applicant to relief of his two constitutional claims under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1) and (d)(2).

5.) Whether the State habeas court's failure to conduct the Krezdorn Test (U.5. V. Krezdorn,718 F2d 1360 at 1365(5th cir.1 983)), to applicant's IAC vindictive indictment of prosecutorial misconduct claim resulted in insufficient factual determinations that was objectively unreasonable based on the facts and circumstances in light of the evidence presented in State habeas court proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(2), to entitle applicant to relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1) and (d)(2).

Whether Applicant is entitled to a certificate of appealability or review by the Supreme Court