I. WHETHER A CLEARLY ERRONEOUS LEGAL CONCLUSION BY A STATE COURT MY BE AFFORDED A PRESUMPTION OF CORRECTNESS AND RELIED UPON TO DEMY HABEAS CORPUS 'RELIEF WHERE THE ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF THE CHARGED OFFENSE THAT THE RAILROAD GUARD PICTIN WAS A "LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER" IS ACTIVELY CONTRADICTED BY CRIMINAL STATUTES?

II. WHETHER A CLAIM THAT ESTABLISHES THE WITHHOLDING OF EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE BY THE PROSECUTION THAT IS NOT DISCOVERED UNTIL ' AFTER TRIAL MAY BE SUBJECTED TO PROCEDURAL DEFAULT ON THE BASIS THAT ' THE PROSECUTOR FALSELY REPRESENTED AT TRIAL THAT THE EVIDENCE WAS DESTROYED? '

III. WHETHER A LOCAL APPELLATE RULE REQUIRING A PRAECIPE TO TRANSMIT THE RECORD PERMITS, BUT DOES NOT, REQUIRE, DISMISSAL OF THE APPEAL FOR LACK OF THE INCLUSION THEREOF, IS "FIRMLY ESTABLISHED AND REGULARLY FOLLOWED" SO AS TO CONSTITUTE AN ADEQUATE AND INDEPENDENT PROCEDURAL BAR TO HABEAS REVIEW OF -AN ILLEGALLY ' ENHANCED SENTENCE IN VIOLATION OF APPRENM , BLAKELY AND ALLEYNS , WHERE ' THE APPEAL IS SUBSEQUENT TO THE INITIAL DIRECT APPEAL • AND THE APPELLATE COURT ALREADY HAS THE RECORD BEFORE IT, AND THE APPELLANT MAKES A DILIGENT EFFORT TO CORRECT THE DEFICIENCY?

Whether a clearly erroneous legal conclusion by a state court may be afforded a presumption of correctness and relied upon to deny habeas corpus relief