Yielding to a ends of justice inquire in regards to a federal application for writ of habeas corpus, should review be granted in the spirit of correcting a U.S. Constitution violation in the 1st magnitude, when inferior federal courts have (failed) to acknowledge a claim alleging there is a cause, and prejudice for untimely filing of 28 U.S.C.2254, do to ineffective assist, of counsel at trial level, and (no) counsel appointed as of (right).

Whether remand, or recall of mandate is necessasary in light of New bedrock procedural rule announce in Martinez v. Ryan[ 2012-U. S._^J ; Holding; Courts are now obligated to address a (I.A.C.) claim at of right ^DISPITE )*A.E.D.P.A trial level,or NO counsel as MEANING A SUCCESSFUL CLAIM OF THIS NATURE excuses any procedural default /[noting that (NO) C.O.A. HAS BEEN ISSUED HERE v. Cronicf 1984-U.S.J claim is present.)• WHERE A CLEAR U.S. See Dowd v. U.S. ex rel. Cooknt 1951-U.S.-] U.S. Supreme court (predecessor) recalling this courts mandate issued now allow a new appeal in accordance to equal protection clause in U.S.C.A- several yrs. earlier, to IS.

In event petitioner prevails on structural error in question #1. 5/hould court instead, Order a New trial on the bases that do to the state's arbitrary refusal to appoint counsel as of right, it has resulted in the destruction of all records required to be developed by the appointed appellant counsel that was ava« K at that juncture in time having either a positive,or negative impact on appeal claims. Recognizing that reversal her^only requires sufficient fact's, and trial counsel to acknowledge incompetence at a evid. hearing. Petitioner now (cgnnot) recieve a (TRUE) adequate review on counsel* (clear) memory to recall events in relevance to a significant amount in fpasage of timejhas occured here, counsel can (NOT) be expected to recall event's occuring over 25 yrs. ago. The holding that on such claim,it is presumed unreliable (favors) remedy here,compare case Rodriguez v.U.S .[1969] 395 U.S. 327, Remanded by this court 6yrs. after conviction date to resolve I.A.C. to direct appeal .evid. reinstate

Upon new trial remedy should order included exclusion of evidence obtained in yjp lo> flOrt the U.S.Const.Arndts. 5,6,an,14,tainted evid. as alleged in statement of case,on federal habeas,

Is Granting resolve and ESTABLISH U.S. PRECEDENT addressing whether RETROACT IVE application applys to the NEW BEDROCK RULE ennounced in Martinez v. Ryan [2012-U.S.-] ,(EXCEPTION to address merits of certain claims DISPITB A.E.D.P.A. time-barr) , BASED on Principles of BEDROCK PROCEDURES Established in Gideon v. Wainwrightf 1963-U.S.-J Evitts v. Lucy [ 1984-U.S.-] , applying under Teague [1989-U

Whether review should be granted to correct a U.S. Constitution violation when inferior federal courts have failed to acknowledge a claim alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and lack of appointed counsel