One: Whether Petitioner presented a sulstantial showing of neuly discovered factual actual innocence in this case? I he lower court's desision was based on on unreasonable determination of facts enlight of the evidence presented.

Two: Whether Petitioner presented a substantial showing of the denial of his Fourth, Fifth; sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights that resulted in a gross and grave missarriage of justice in the conviction ? The decision of the lower court's is in conflict with clearly established federal law os determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.

Threer: Whether the United States Court of Oppeals for the Fifth Circuit entered a decision in conflict with previous or relevant decisions in MillerEl v. Cockrell, 123 8. Ct.1029(2003), Mc Quiggin V. Perkins, 569 U.8.383, 386(2013), House 2. Bell, 547 U.8.518 (2006), Murray 2. Carrier, 477 U.8.478, 496,106 8.Ct. 2639, 2649,91 L.Ed.2d 397,413(1986), 8trickland 2. Washington, 466 2.8.668,1048.Ct. 2052 (1984), Gackson 2.2irginia, 443 21.8.307, 99 8. Ct.2781,61 L.Ed.2d 560119791, and 80hlup 2. Del0, 513 U.8. 298, 327,115 8. Ct.851, 867, 130 L. Ed. 2d 808,836(1995)? The decision of the lower courts is in conflict wit cleary established federal law as determined ley the bupreme lourt was beased on an uenreasonalle delermination of bacts enlight of the evidence presented.

Whether the lower court's decision was based on an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law