First Question: Whether the District Court erred when it held Lynch was not entitled to the "fundamental miscarriage of justice" exception under the Carrier standard was contrary to holdings established by the Supreme Court in Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 278, 321, 324, 327-328, 331-332 (1975)?

Second Question: Whether the District Court erred when it did not hold that Lynch's constitutional-Brady-error claims, raised in initial-review collateral proceedings in a Utah State court "where there was no counsel" for Lynch, that were procedurally defaulted was contrary to holdings established by the Supreme Court in Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1, 17 (2012)?

Third Question: Whether the District Court erred when it made six (6) false statements of fact to deny Lynch the "fundamental miscarriage of justice" exception under the Carrier standard was contrary to the holdings established by the Supreme Court that "[d]ue process guarantees that fundamental fairness essential to the very concept of justice," Lisenba v. CA, 314 U.S. 219, 236 (1941)?

Fourth Question: Whether the District Court erred when it made a conclusion of law for summary judgment on the credibility of new evidence not presented at trial without an evidentiary hearing was contrary to holdings established by the Supreme Court in Schlup, supra, at 332?

Fifth Question: Whether the District Court erred when it failed to address allegations of eleven (11) false statements of fact or law as fraud on the court in Respondent/Appellee's Motion to Dismiss Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus was contrary to holdings established by the Supreme Court in Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., 332 U.S. 238, 246 (1944) (it "is a wrong against the institutions set up to protect and safeguard the public, institutions in which fraud cannot complacently be tolerated")?

Sixth Question: Whether the District Court erred when it denied Lynch's three (3) requests for appointed counsel was contrary to the holdings established by the Supreme Court in Bounds v. Smith, 450 U.S. 817, 822 (1977) ('counsel must be appointed to give indigent inmates a "meaningful appeal" from their convictions') (emphasis added)?

Seventh Question: Whether the District Court erred when it denied Lynch's request for the prison to provide a Law Library or an adequate Legal Assistance Program to inmates was contrary to holdings established by the Supreme Court in Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351 (1996) ('prison law libraries and legal assistance programs are the means for ensuring "a reasonably adequate opportunity to present claims for violations of fundamental constitutional rights to the courts."' [Bounds, 430 U.S.], at 825')?

Eighth Question: Whether the District Court erred when it denied Lynch's Constitutional right of access to the courts by not granting Lynch's request for an order to not transfer Lynch to other correctional facilities was contrary to holdings established by the Supreme Court in Bounds, 430 U.S., at 821 ("It is established beyond doubt that prisoners have a constitutional right of access to the courts").

Ninth Question: Whether the District Court erred when it denied Lynch's constitutional right of access to the courts by not granting Lynch's request for an order to allow Lynch to purchase computer was contrary to holdings established by the Supreme Court in Bounds, supra?

Tenth Question: Whether the Court of Appeals er

Whether the District Court erred when it held Lynch was not entitled to the 'fundamental miscarriage of justice' exception under the Carrier standard