WHETHER A STATE CREATED DELAY OF UNINFORMED NOTIFICATION THAT A SECOND AMENDED (CORRECTED SENTENCING)JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION HAD BECOME FINAL AND RIPE FOR A SECOND APPEAL CONSTITUTES AN EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES WARRANTING EQUITABLE TOLLING OF THE AEDPA ONE YEAR HABEAS CORPUS TIME PERIDD AMOUNTING TO A MISCARRIACE OF JUSTICE, WHERE SIMILAR SITUATED DEFENDANT'S HAVE RECEIVED THE PI EI E T SI

WHETHER A MISPERCEIVED CLAIM OF A DUE PROCESS VIOLATION AND A DENIAL OF ACCESS OF THE COURT, WHERE THE PETITIONER WAS NEVER NOTIFIED OF AN OPPORTUNITY BY THE STATE COURTS OF A SECOND DIRECT APPEAL AFTER A SUCCESSFUL FIRST APPEAL NETTED A CORRECTED AMENDED JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE WHICH HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY THE FEDERAL COURTS AS ARGUINC AN APPEAL OF A POSTCONVICTION 3.85O MOTION RATHER THAN THE TRUE CLAIM, DESERVES CORRECTION UNDER HALBERT V. MICHIGAN, 545 U.S. 605 (2005) ?

Whether a state-created delay of uninformed notification that a second amended (corrected sentencing) judgment of conviction had become final and ripe for a second appeal constitutes an extraordinary circumstances warranting equitable tolling of the AEDPA one year habeas corpus time period amounting to a miscarriage of justice