1. DID THE Appellant RECEIVE A Fair TRIAL, AS PROMISED BY BOTH FEDERAL, AND STATE CONSTITUTION.

2. DID THE VIRGINIA SUPREME COURT SHUT THE DOOR, NOT ALLOWING VIABLE CLAIMS, DUE TO ERROR OF COUNSELS FAILURE TO FOLLOW UP, PRESENTING CLAIMS?

3. ARE THE ISSUES CONTAINED LIBERALLY PERMITTED, WITHOUT ADVANCING NEW BARE FACTS CONTAINED SUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH, AND RULE ON THE MERIT OF THE CLAIMS, PROVIDING APPELLANT WITH A REMEDY?

4. DOES PETITIONER SATISFIED FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCESS (D) 1.1.) MISTAKE; INADVERTANCE; SURPRISE... MISREPRESENTATION INTRINSIC AMENDMENT ANAS VOID, AND OTHER REASON THAT JUSTIFIED RELIEF.

5. ARE THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT OVERLOOKED A FACTUAL CONTENTION, WHICH INVOLVES MORE THAN ONE Question OF EXCEPTIONAL IMPORTANCE?

6. DID THE SUPREME COURT OF VIRGINIA PREJUDICE APPELLANTS ABILITY TO RAISE, OR DEMONSTRATE FORE DISPOSITION OF DEBATABLE CLAIM, ADEQUATELY ALLOWING REPLY TO CONSTITUTION RIGHTS, AT THE HABEAS CORPUS STAGE?

7. DID THE APPELLANTS AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED, AND FILED AS MOTION FOR RELIEF SATISFY INDEPENDENTLY, A MISTAKE, OF INADVERTENCE IN THIS MATTER?

8. SHOULD APPELLANTS HABEAS CORPUS BE CONSTRUED LIBERALLY?

Whether the appellant received a fair trial as promised by the federal and state constitutions