I.
WHETHER UNDER §2254(e)(l) DISTRICT COURT REQUIRED TO GIVE DEFERENCE TO STATE
APPELLATE COURT'S FINDING OF HISTORICAL FACTS AND UPON FINDING THAT PETITIONER
AND/OR OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED STATE PRISONERS HAVE REBUTTED THE EXPLICIT
STATE APPELLATE COURT RULING OF WAIVER/PROCEDURAL DEFAULT BY EVIDENCE THAT IS
CLEAR AND CONVINCING THAT STATE COURT'S PRESUMPTION OF CORRECTNESS IS REFUTED
SUCH THAT STATE PRISONERS ARE ENTITLED TO DE NOVO REVIEW OF CONSTITUTIONAL
CLAIMS?

II.
WHETHER THE FACTS SET FORTH PREVIOUSLY AND HEREIN ESTABLISH THAT JURISTS OF
REASON COULD DISAGREE WITH THE DISTRICT COURTS §2254(d) AEDPA APPLICATION AS
OPPOSED TO STATE APPELLATE COURTS WAIVED/PROCEDURALLY DEFAULTED DETERMINATION
SUCH THAT THE THIRD CIRCUIT SHOULD HAVE ISSUED A COA TO REVIEW THE DISTRICT
COURT'S DENIAL OF HABEAS RELIEF?

III.
WHETHER STATE APPELLATE COURT RELIANCE ON-FED.R.CRIM.P. RULE 30 DURING STATE
APPELLATE MATTERS (RELATIVE TO PA.R.CRIM.P
COUNTERPART TO FED.R.CRIM.P. RULE, 30) AND JONES V. U.S. (1999) prevents the
PA STATE COURTS FROM AN INDEPENDENT STATE-LAW DEFENSE UNDER AKE V. OKLAHOMA
SUCH THAT THE THIRD CIRCUIT SHOULD HAVE ISSUED A COA TO REVIEW THE DISTRICT
COURT'S DENIAL OF HABEAS RELIEF?RULE 647 BEING THE PENNSYLVANIA • 9

IV.
WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURT'S INTERPRETATION OF §2254(d)(2) RELATIVE TO CLAIM
UNDER STRICKLAND V. WASHINGTON (1984), IS INAPPROPRIATELY RESTRICTIVE SUCH
THAT IT CONFLICTS WITH OTHER CIRCUIT COURTS?

V.
WHETHER THIRD CIRCUIT HOLDING OF DENIAL OF A COA FOR "SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME
REASONS PROVIDED BY THE DISTRICT COURT" CONFLICTS WITH THE RULING OF OTHER
CIRCUIT COURTS AND U.S. SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT AS SUCH A RULING IS BEYOND
THE THRESHOLD INQUIRY REQUIRED FOR ISSUANCE OF A COA?

Whether district court required to give deference to state appellate court's finding of historical facts