Question 1. May a dismissal of a Section 2254 Petition based on failure to exhaust state remedies, be overturned, given that the judgement conflicts with other Federal Circuits rulings holding that unjustifiable excessive state system appellate delay exempts the nonjurisdictional exhaustion requirement?

Question 2. May a dismissal of a Section 2254 Petition, based on failure to exhaust state remedies, be overturned, given that the judgement conflicts with other Federal Circuits rulings holding that unjustifiable excessive state system appellate delay violates the Appellant Petitioner's Constitutional Rights, and constitutes a deprivation of Due Process, sufficient grounds to justify the exercise of Federal Habeas Jurisdiction?

Question 3. May a dismissal of a Section 2254 Petition, based on failure to exhaust state remedies, be overturned, given that the same important matter holding that unjustifiable excessive state system appellate delay constitutes existence of circumstances present in state appeals process that render that process ineffective to protect the Rights of the prisoner and is grounds to exempt exhaustion of state remedies?

Question 4. May a dismissal of a Section 2254 Petition, based on failure to exhaust state remedies, be overturned, given that the judgement conflicts with that same Circuit's Binding Precedent on unjustifiable excessive state system appellate delay violates the Appellant Petitioner's Constitutional Rights and constitutes a deprivation of Due Process cognizable in Federal Court?

May a dismissal of a Section 2254 Petition, based on failure to exhaust state remedies, be overturned, given that the judgement so far departed from and conflicts with this Most Honorable Court's relevant decisions on same important matter holding that exhaustion requirement is not jurisdictional or binding the Federal Court merely comity based and that thus failure to exhaust is not an absolute bar to Federal Habeas Claims?

May a dismissal of a Section 2254 Petition on failure to exhaust state remedies, be overturned, given that the judgement so far departs from and conflicts with this Court's relevant decisions on same important matter holding that unjustifiable excessive state system appellate delay violates the Appellant-Petitioner's Constitutional Rights, AND that where a state system grants the right to an appeals process from conviction, that process must be Constitutionally comporting and be conducted subject to the demands of Due Process, which this Court has defined as an Appeal processed at a Meaningful Time, and in a Meaningful Manner?

Whether the dismissal of a Section 2254 petition based on failure to exhaust state remedies should be overturned, given that the judgment conflicts with other federal circuit rulings holding that unjustifiable excessive state system appellate delay violates the petitioner's constitutional rights and constitutes a deprivation of due process