vs eoWHerf 40 Relief oil ao -Etfideohe-c^
^ \4beR6 *4*ve, 'UtaW Couxri- of ^Ws/^ r»AVi duzcu^
auq SI Uto liute# SUifes ~L>^(Zurf (iouftl kJmibQO 7).ste/
ot "TeV^s (iec\sio*? Ooo0(tc^s Couci-i gc. A OcO/J
QpuJiGio^ vJheQ^ ^a^-so^ pa£5e*>W A-C.Wn of- AcW jJaxie^
ACCO*vipAio^ \af A- dWVn of V/ofwte^ A ^TP-e^ 1*^ of
'tffedWe ^®s\sWJc& q£» CouOSei *4W oOAS QOO^il^ 4o^<Q& t
C^ecAWei^ AppUtA4tk>0 4o 4edt/2Af &Kfh~l
40 Ttacess hvs (q* wd

Whether Welhee Jackson is entitled to relief on an evidentiary hearing where the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas decision conflicts with other courts' opinions, when Jackson presented a claim of actual innocence accompanied by a claim of constitutional violation, a denial of effective assistance of counsel that was contrary to, or unreasonably applied to, Jackson's federal right to due process of his 5th and 14th amendments