1. Did the state trial court, la. appellant ha. Supreme Court and US District court, Eastern Violate the petitioners Constitutional Rights IM? Amendment st Amendment and let? Amendment of the US Const and/or commit manifest and harmful error when it ruled her Latter proceedings wacluding a 'rial applicable .

2. Did the State Court, La. appellant, ba. Supreme Court and US District Court, Eastern Violete. the petitioner's Constitutional fights (ior Amendment of the US Const. and/or commit manifest and harmful error when it held the Confrontation Clause was not violated and a trial proceeded without testimony of the alleged victim.

3. Did the State trial Court , ha. appellant | La. Supreme Court and US District Court, Eastern Violete the pettioners Constitutional Right 14th Amendment and 6th Amendment of the US Const and/or Commit manifest and harmful error ? when held the trial courts decision yet to admit the statement by the victims mother in evidence was appropriate.

4. Did the state trial court, La. appellant, ba. Supreme Court and US District Court, Eastern Violate the petitioner's Constitutional Rights and 6th commit manifest and harmful error 14 mendment and 6th Amendment of the US Const y when held the trial Court did not abuse its discretion denying the petitioner a New trial spending the victim testimony would not probably produce a different verdict

5. Did the state trial Court, La. appellant, ha. Supreme Court and US District Court, Eastern Violate the petitioner's Constitutional rights 14th Amendment, 5th Amendment and 6th Amendment of the US Const. and/or Commit manifest and harmful error, when held the State proved every element of its Case beyond a reasonable doubt.

6. Did the State trial Court, ba. appellant, ba. Supreme Court and US District Court , Eastern Violate the petitioner's Constitutional Right 14th Amendment of the US Const and/or commit manifest and harmful error, when held. the petitioner failed to show Effective Assistance of Counsel.

7. Did the US District Court, Eastern commit manifest and harmful error when "ruled" petitioner is not entitled to Federal Habeas Relief on his Claim that the State trial Court ruled without jurisdiction or reconsideration Ruling on the motion to Quash the Indictment ; Pointing to no plain error in the portion of the Report and Recommendation to which petitioner does Not object, that petitioner's claims be denied and dismissed with prejudice .

8. Did the US District Court Eastern and US Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit commit manifest and harmful error, when adopting the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation that petitioner has not demonstrated a Violation of his Constitutional Rights and Denying Certificate of Appealability(CoA) and request and denial of an Evidentiary Hearing.

Did the state trial court, la. appellant, la. Supreme Court and US District Court, Eastern violate the petitioner's Constitutional Rights (1st Amendment, 5th Amendment and 14th Amendment of the US Constitution) and/or commit manifest and harmful error?