Question One: Whether the district Court and the 5 th Circvit was correct that Isbel did not properly preserve and exhaust his ineffective assistance of either court should have issved a COA on this Claim?

Whether if the district court should have applied Trevino V. Thaler, 133 S.Ct.1911(2013) to this Claim if they believed it to be Unexhausted?

Question Two: Whether Isbel has a dve process rignt to documents the state filed with its answer and referenced in its answer?

whether the district court abused its discretion when it denied Isbels motion to Compel production of documents?

Whether the 5Th Circvit abused its d is cretion when it filed in the 5 Th Circvit?

Qvestion Three: Whether in Texas if a non-Capital Claims?

and Whether Isbel's ineffectire assistance of trial Counsel Claims should be revleiwed de novo rather than Under Claimevalvated Under 28 U.S.C. 2254(d)(1) and Harrington V. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (2011)?

Question Four: Whetner stolen identifying was sitting would be sufficient to satisfy the Specific Intent element of intent to harm or defraud?

Whether the Texas 14Th Court of Appeals and the district courts decision rejectingthis claim was based on an Unreasonable determination of facts 28 U.S.C. 2254 (d)(2);

and, Whether its finding of an intent to harm or defraud based on documents found on the seat of a car was itself identifying an unreasonable application of Jackson v. Virginia, 443Us. 307(1979)?

Whether the district Court or the 5 Th Circit should have Issved a COA?

Qvestion Five: When Isbel's trial a ttorney preserved the of thejychage t tracking te inctment, brief the following issves on appeal, whether what are really separate offenses that are a violation of the Same Statute may be Submitted to the jury disjunctively?

Whether Isbel was dened Specificity of the jury charge by the joining of two offenses?

that did not reovire the jury to agree which offense Isbel Committed?

Whether a COA should have been Issved for this Claim?

Qvestion Six: Whether 28 U.S.C. & 2254(dX1) vidates the equal protection Clavse of the 14 Th Amendment?

Qvestion Seven: Whether when Congress passed 28 U.S.C. 8 2254 ( )(1), Congress violated Separation of powers principle of the Constitution?

Whether the district court and the 5th circuit were correct that Isbel did not properly preserve and exhaust his ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim in state court