1. Whether 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(C) permits a court of appeals, when ruling on a motion for authorization to file a successive habeas petition based on newly discovered evidence, to reach fact issues raised by that evidence.

2. Whether a movant seeking authorization from the court of appeals to file a successive habeas application under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3) based on newly discovered evidence must establish that, had that evidence been available at trial, no reasonable juror would have voted to convict.

3. Whether a court of appeals has jurisdiction to usurp the district court's statutory responsibility for resolving, in the first instance, whether a petitioner has shown he is authorized to pursue habeas corpus relief in a successive habeas corpus proceeding, or whether the jurisdiction of the court of appeals is limited to its statutory role of determining whether there is a prima facie case for such relief.

Whether a court of appeals can reach fact issues when ruling on a motion for authorization to file a successive habeas petition based on newly discovered evidence