I.
Contrary to precedent set in Yeager v. Commonwealth , 16 Va.
433 S.E.2d 248 (1993) and rule 3A:16 of the Rules of App. 761
Supreme Court of Virginia, did the Court of Appeals of Virginia
unreasonably affirm the Petitioner's conviction on the charge of
First-Degree Murder after the trial court denied the objection
from the Petitioner to the Jury Instruction Number Eleven as the
instruction impermissibly 'singled out for emphasis
to be considered in establishing element of premeditation and
deliberation ?the factors

II.
Did the Court of Appeals of Virginia unreasonably affirm
the Petitioner's conviction on the charge of First-Degree Murder
even though the evidence was insufficient to show that he was the
individual who committed the crime or that he acted with
premeditation ? >
Contrary to United States v. Strayhorn , 572 U.S. 1145(2014),
is there sufficient evidence to infer that the Petitioner was in
possession of the alleged murder weapon and other items found
near the weapon during the commission of the crime ?

Is there sufficient evidence to infer that it was the
Petitioner who was in possession of the cell phone while it was
moving, contrary to prosecution's own DNA evidence ?

Is there sufficient evidence to infer the identity of the
car or the driver ?

Is just a matching name sufficient to prove the authorship
of internet search records ?

Whether the Court of Appeals of Virginia unreasonably affirmed the Petitioner's conviction on the charge of First-Degree Murder