WAS PETITIONERS CONVICTION SUSTAINED IN VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS WARRANTING HABEAS RELIEF WHERE THE DISTRICT

THE INJUSTICE THAT RESOULTS FRON THE CONVICTION OF AN INNOCENT PERSON?

WAS COUNGEL CONSTITUTIONALLY INEFFECTIVE BECAUSE HE FAILED TO INVESTIGATE AND SOLIDIFY PETITIONERS INNOCENCE CLATM; FAIED TO OBJECT DURNG CRITICAL WITNESS TESTTMONY; AND FAILED TO FILE A PITCHESS MOTION CHALLENGINE PROSECUTIONS ONLY WITNESS SUGGESTING PETITIONERS GUILT?

TAETICS THAT VIOLATED HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO OUE PROCESS?

DID THE COURTS BELOW COMMIT REVERSIBLE ERR DENYING PETITIONERSS225Y(AXI)(2) MOTON WITHOUT CONDUCTING AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING TO RESOLVE THE FACTUAL DISPUTES?

Whether the district court erred in denying petitioner's habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2) where the district court failed to adequately apply the statutory case law and hold an evidentiary hearing to resolve factual disputes