(1) WHETHER HIS PETITION HABEAS CORPUS IS "SECOND OF SUCCESSIVE"?

(2) WHETHER THE PROCEDURAL DEFAULT RULING DECISION BY THE DISTRICT COURT ON PRIOR HABEAS CORPUS RELIEF HIM OF THE SECOND OR SUCCESSIVE ISSUE?

(3) WHETHER HIS CLAIM ON HIS NEW WRIT OF INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL IS, AS A WHOLE, RESERVED A "DE NOVO" REVIEW UNDER THE DISTRICT COURT'S RULING TO "SECOND OR SUCCESSIVE"?

(4) WHETHER HIS CLAIM OF NEW LAW, NEW RULE UNDER STATE AND FEDERAL LAW, RELIEF HIM OF THE COURT OF APPEALS RULING TO "SECOND OR SUCCESSIVE"?

(5) WHETHER A DENIAL OF A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT WAS CLEARLY ESTABLISHED; AND, IF A CORRECTNESS STANDARD IS APPLICABLE, MERIT ON GROUNDS ESTABLISHED.

(6) WHETHER THE COURTS OF APPEALS ERRED IN FAILING TO RULE A PROCEDURAL DEFAULT RULING?

(7) WHETHER THE FAILURE TO RECEIVE THE RULINGS OF THE STATES FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW IN HIS HABEAS CORPUS PETITION DEPRIVED HIM OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO BE HEARD ON APPEAL?

Whether the denial of a writ of habeas corpus by the district court was proper