Certiorari is sought re the erroneous denial of a C.O.A. or Reergument in the 3rd Cir. Ct. of Appeals, perhaps most notable among the questions presented, is if this court's ruling in Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170, 181 (2011), bars a rehearing re Brady material that was unavailable in the St. Ct. where the ABA Pled the 5th, and access to the ADA file was denied, because Janes v. Bagley, 696 F.3d 475 (6th Cir. 2012) ftnote 4, ref. at 486, states Brady is an exception to "Pinholster," but other huge questions of significant public importance that are as of yet unprecedented have also been presented:

1) REGARDING WHEN A C.O.A. IS TO BE ISSUED, HAVE THIS COURT'S HOLDINGS IN Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880 (1983), AND Miller v. Cockerill, 537 U.S. 332 (2003) BEEN OVERRULED, OR HAS THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE 3rd Cir. ERRED IN FAILING TO ISSUE A C.O.A. OR REARGUMENT IN THE INSTANT MATTER?

2) ARE PCRA's FILED BY THE DECLARANT AND COUNSEL, AND TESTIMONY FROM HIS COUNSEL REVEALING A BRADY VIOLATION AND TRIAL PERJURY, A HEARSAY EXCEPTION WHEN THE DECLARANT IS UNAVAILABLE? WHEN THE ADA PLEADS THE 5th IN RESPONSE TO THE ACCUSATION OF A BRADY VIOLATION, DOES IT HAVE ANY EVIDENTIARY VALUE AS AN ADMISSION IN THE CIVIL SETTING OF A PCRA HEARING? WHEN THE PCRA DECLARANT SUBSEQUENTLY BECOMES AVAILABLE AND ISSUES AFFIDAVITS ADMITTING THE BRADY VIOLATION, IS A REHEARING BARRED BY "PINHOLSTER," 563 U.S. 170 (2011), WHEN ACCESS TO THE ADA FILE WAS DENIED AT FIRST HEARING, AND "BAGGET," 696 F.3d 475 (6th Cir. 2012) footnote 4, ref. at 486, STATES BRADY MATERIAL IS A BRIGHT LINE EXCEPTION TO "PINHOLSTER."

3) WHERE THE JURY RETURNED FROM DELIBERATIONS REQUESTING THE SELF-DEFENSE INSTRUCTION BE REPEATED AND WERE ERRONEOUSLY INSTRUCTED DEFENDANT HAD A DUTY TO RETREAT FROM HIS "DWELLING," ARE THE DEFENDANT'S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS VIOLATED WHERE THE DIST. DISPOSED OF THE CLAIM BY ADOPTING A MISREPRESENTATION BY THE ST. CT. THE DUTY WAS NOT EXCUSED FROM A "DWELLING" UNDER THE STATUTE AT THE TIME OF TRIAL, WHEN IT WAS (5th and 14th Amendment U.S. Const. Due process), AND DOES A PRISONER HAVE A RIGHT TO STAND HIS GROUND IN HIS ASSIGNED CELL?

4) WHERE THE JURY RETURNED FROM DELIBERATIONS REQUESTING THE SELF-DEFENSE INSTRUCTION BE REPEATED AND WERE ERRONEOUSLY INSTRUCTED IF THE DEFENDANT "ACCIDENTALLY" INJURED THE

Whether the Third Circuit Court of Appeals erred in failing to issue a Certificate of Appealability or grant reargument in the instant matter