1 Did the ul.s. q+b Cir. Ct. place to high aburdan Denying
COA when Hagnes merely had to show Jurists o f reason
could Disagree with the Dist. Saurt resolution, and evidence
once verified, areasaned Jurst could conclude, the issues
Presented are adequate to deserue encouragment to ProCeed further ( Buck v Dauis, no.15-Bou)

2 Did theu.s. Dist. Court abuse it's diccretion vefusing to conduct an Fvidentiarg Heaving, ciolated Hagnes Due Peocess to
reciew new evidence regarding the illegal extradition, Arvost
∞,
and in fesences to Guilt and Jurisdiction on the merits. the.
Dist ct. referencing only, "fom the Avalable vecord" Appx4,
RdR, . 25 st. nt. (25) thatonce Verified true, establishes a
basis for relief.(22s4 (e)(2) (reference, Appx.8 Attch.1,
gr.X P.117 +0121): (Earp V0rn05ki 41 F.3d. 1188 1167(qthC.
2005: (+0+en vmerkle 137 F,3d 1172, 1176(95 C10. 1198).

3 Did the State Courts denial of Haynes claims to a fair
and speedy Trial aftera 2Oyear delay and ufo Canducting a Barker v wingo inguiry into Actud/Presumed Projudice,
lthorDat Hayves
uueston
wavrant, letexpire, violate the sthd14t- Amendment tothe us.
Constitution rights to Due Process and the 6th Amendmentright
to the Presumption of Prejudice. see Appx. B, Attch 1, gr.I, P.
173; (Dogget+ (1992 505 u5657); (Barker V wingo (1972)407
US 514, 92 S.C+. 2182, 33 Led.2d 101): (klopfes U narth Carolina.
386 u5 213 [18 LEd.2d. 1] 87.S.Ct. 988)

4 was Haynes unfairly deried his sth, 6+hd14t Amendment to
the U.s. Constitution equal Protections to Fair aud speedy trial
guavantees, when the state and Fed. Dist.court made rulings conTrarg to factually the same Holdings found in well adepted Suprame
Court Precedents and qth cir. Jurisprudence (see Appx 8, Attch.5,
. P.6 mendoza);(mendoza (gt cir. 2008)530 F.3d. 758); Citing
Dogge1+ VUS. (1992) 505u5 657, 120 LEd.2d. 520,531-532 117 5.t.2684,
2686).

5) Did the Purfoseful distouction by the FupD o f all the r

Whether the state court abused its discretion in refusing to conduct an evidentiary hearing, violating the petitioner's due process rights to review new evidence regarding an illegal extradition, arrest, and conviction