Whether the jurisdiction of this court is invoked under 28 U.S.C.
§1257(a) concerning a state prisoners'claim(s) that was adjudicated
on the merits in state must stand, 28 U.S.C.§2254(d) , unless state
court judgment resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or in
volved an unreasonable application of clearly established federal
law,-"to be charged ,tried ,and convicted of a predicate offense",the
governing count's 1 & 8 are sentence enhancers'as the Elements of
SAOC (sex assault on a child) was not included in governing counts
1 & 8,"I cannot be charged with enhancer counts'only" ...ie: Colorado
Court of Appeals - People v. Torrez, 2013 COA 37 applies
"[sa] sentence enhancement f actor ... like the substantive predicate
offense, must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt',' subsequent to
governing counts 1 & 8 are charged sentence enhancers only, and are
unreasonable determination of facts to the case in which Judge Colts
audit review exposed fraud upon an already faulty indictment ,"denied
the right to representation and/or be present at every step/stage of
court proceedings in which Mr.Cox complains. Penny v. People, 146
Colo. 95, 360 P.2d 671 (1961) oror

Whether a state prisoner must go through all avenues of relief in th'so
state courts'before going to federal court,(total exhaustion rule)
thus state courts chose not to fix the errors mentioned in all briefs
in support 35(a) -U.S. 10th.Circuit Court of Appeals em passim but
leaned on procedural default claims, (time barr), which is not based
on any Supreme Court case as this petitioner has always been very much
active in all his timely filed pro se pleadings. Rose v. Lundy, 540
U.S. 509 (1982), all errors had substantial injurious affects
influence in Mr.Cox trial determination. Dunn v. Madison, 138 S.Ct. 9
(2017).and

Whether a state district court plainly miscalculates Mr.Cox guidline
range to eventual freedom of some meaningful opportunity to obtain
parole during his lifetime must be analyzed seperately and the mis
takes' also affected Mr.Cox substantial rights to exercising discretion
to resentence or to vacate the sentence. Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S.
460 (2012), (life without parole equivilant) imposed without a finding
that Mr.Cox was irreparably corrupt or permanently incorrigible.
Montgomery v. Louisiana ,577 U.S
(holding Miller supra retroactive).193 L.Ed.2d 599 (2016), 136 S.Ct. 718}

Whether the jurisdiction of this court is invoked under 28-U.S.C.-1257(a)