(1) Does the availability in Public Records qualify as an Irideperidetit or Adequate State procedural ground to bar a State prisoner's Claim of prosecutorial misconduct in violation of >(Brady v. Maryland , 373- -U.S. 83 (1963)) from recieving §2254 Federal Habeas review and relief?

(2) Does the AntiTerrorism and Effective Death Penalty Adttofi 61996-- -(AEDPA)'s deferential standard of review under §2254(d) apply to a State Supreme Court's decision to procedurally bar a state prisoner's Brady prosecutorial misconduct claim raised in the state's initial- -review collateral proceeding which alleges the misconduct and Brady violation based on "Newly Discovered Evidence" from §2254 Federal Habeas review and relief?

(3) Did the presumption of correctness under §2254(e) apply to a _ - decision of a State's Highest Court whichjdirectly conflicts with and contravenes this Court's decision (Amadeo v. Zant , 486 U.S. 214 (1988) regarding a State *criminal prosecution's Constitutional duty and legal obligations to disclose Brady material available in public records ?

(4) Should the "equitable" rule exception established by this Court's deeision(s) ( Martinez v. Ryan , 566 U.S. 1 (2012) and Trevino v.- -Thaler, 1133 S.Ct. 1911 (2013) ),be extended to also include and apply to a State prisoner's Brady prosecutorial misconduct claim based on "Newly Discovered" evidence uncovered during pirfeetoAppe&loand/or post-conviction proceedings ?

(5) Should a Federal Habeas Court be Constitutionally required under 282U-i $i.Q. t§2254(e) to conduct an independent materiality analysis of "Newly Discovered" Brady material as prescribed by this Court's priori decision(( Kyles v. Whitley , 514 U.S. 419 (1995))in performing a de novo review of a state prisoner's Brady prosecutorial misconduct claim for a reasonable determination of the "prejudice" element caused by the Brady violation ?

(6) Does a State's Criminal prosecution violate a prisoner's Access to the Courts, Equal Protection, and Due Process Rights under the 1st, and 14th Amendments U.S. Constitution when it denies and/or refuses a Self-Represented prisoner's Brady disclosure requests during their stat State criminal trial as the prisoner is being held in the State's custody as a segregated prisoner pending trial ?

(7) Did the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals and the Lower District Court err under 28 U,SCC. §2254(e) in refusing to Grant Petitioner's request for an Evidentiary Hearing upon his "Newly Discovered" Brady Evidence after his establishment of the State Government's suppression and interference as "cause" to excuse the State's asserted procedural default rule used to bar §2254 Federal Habeas review and relief ?

(8) Did the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals and Lower District Court err in Granting!the State Government's motion to dismiss Petitioner's motion to compel the State's prison officials to allow petitioner the right to recieve 'his relevant legal documents and trial transcripts from his family throughtthe prison's legal mailing system for his pending Federal Habeas proceedings without allowing theipetitioner the

Does the availability in Public Records qualify as an Independent or Adequate State procedural ground to bar a State prisoner's claim of prosecutorial misconduct in violation of (Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)) from receiving §2254 Federal Habeas review and relief?