Whether the Habeas Court proceeding and asjudication
of the claim regarding a Batson issue did not result in a decision
that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of
misapplied facts in the state court, as clearly established Federal
Laws, as determine' by the Supreme Court of the United States, or
was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light
of the evidence presented in the Federal Habeas Court proceeding,
thus the District Court abuse of discretion on its part when it
denied Petitioner Batson claim that was clearly demonstrated in
the state court proceeding?

Whether Respondent to the Federal Habeas Court
mischaracterzies Allen's positions in state court, and misrepresents
the factual record with the most salient facts regarding a Batson
violation thus failed to properly engage in demonstrating the
Supreme Court requirements regarding a Batson claim to the Federal
Habeas Court in its Answer and Memorandum?

Whether the Habeas Court proceeding and adjudication of the claim regarding a Batson issue did not result in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of misapplied facts in the state court, as clearly established Federal laws, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States, or was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the Federal Habeas Court proceeding, thus the District Court abuse of discretion on its part when it denied Petitioner Batson claim that was clearly demonstrated in the state court proceeding?