1) IT 1 (krifrcuet's "O&rscrxou/ To Hacss TLatc Judge 's kePofix awo kECOh^cAiaATxojj t C. lcaP.lv atMousntkTio
TUkt hie vsa.% bcuxca 77/e (Iahc J ^EucfxT e>f rt-le Qsame ] Lauj ThlkT was dewoE/tco To a Remel AA-
3xTuate O bePeuaMJr fey 77/e. (jiAM^ {sTate bxSTUzcT CoufLT of fifP£ALS/($eci ApPeajOxjl I at I1.-I£),T)I ea/
Uas 77-4r PeTzCT^OUEP. HADE A. sRsvwEA/& of A* f\AVZ-P csT X/jJitSTxCx'? .. . AA/O (ts] ThlcJlcfoAC Eh]TxTL£o 72
Federal /(a&e.a4 Aecrcff

2) LuKewwxae:, rf PeittLouetli. 'OEE ectxou " tks benoAisiZATEQ -jt1atUi)T!I ejIc was EHA oA/CL) T)hr ERROR
U> Platu ,(3) 77/at XT' APPecrea //rs IuasTjjtxal Qzi&ths / Amd (H) 77/at z:T APPecteo 774 Puuoaheuta L
FaxAUESS of 7>4 ft.DC£cIaZE,($EEi kfPEUOXX TAX 12-li.)/ AIaa 774 PcTzTxu)kJCdbehrouS THaTeO A
"MAL/ xF EST XkliTusTxCX.^ ... AkiO X-S ThlcHcPaf-A EkjTxTLSd To LIa&CAS doiPus AeLXeP?

3) If QeT±T zoa/£#.s *0&T ecTzoa/ " A/as CLe aS.lv tEh^pu&TdkTca Elio f ils) TT/ aT
{Sf/ATE- APP oxIA/ThQ AtToUJEV toUlxuA hlx5 DxR£oT APPELLATE l4vt£V/ (^£El Appe/uots X
At 9"//)y A/as 77/e PcTzTxou efi Leejj Dea/xeo a PaxR Plocess aa/O H-I e DPP oQxuuxtv To
ComPLV WrT>l Tile Qtate !s PfoCEOulES AajO OByTaxu Aa/ AOTwOreATxo// ox/ 77/e M&LxTS
of f-

Whether the petitioner was denied the same review of the game law that was applied to a similarly situated defendant by the state district court of appeals, and is therefore entitled to federal habeas relief?