1 [QUESTION ONE]: DOES THIS COURT HAVE [JURISDICTION & POWER]-
TO GRANT CERTIORARI-EXCUSED LIMITION BAR AN CORRECT FUNDAMETAL
MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE-DENIAL OF COA BY 5th CIR. COURT OF APPEA
-LS-IN LIGHT OF Borden v.U.S.^WARNER IS ACTUALLY INNOCENCE OF •
. NOT BEING CONVICTED OF A DELONY AGGRAVATED ASSAULT-PRIOR CONVICT
-ION-FALSELY USED BY ADA Ms.(P. Houge)-AS A HABITUAL LIFE SENTE
-NCE AS NEW PRESENTED,EVIDENCE SHOW THE PRIOR CONVICTION IS A .
MISDEMEANOR-AS WARNER CASE SHOULD BE AN EXCEPTION TO THE McQuig
-gin/Bousley ^-LIMITATION BAR ?

2.[QUESTION TWO]: IN LIGHT OF THE DENIAL OF [FUNDAMENTAL MISCARR
IAGE OF JUSTICE]-DENIAL OF CAO-DOSE THIS COURT HAVE-[JURISDICT
ION AND POWER]-TO GRANT CERTIORARI-RESOLVE SPLIT IN CIRCUIT COU
-RTS: WHETHER "NEW PRESENTED RELIBLE EVIDENCE NOT PRESENTED AT
TRIAL- "NEW EVIDENCE WRONGLY WITHHELD & DISCOVERED AFTER TRIAL-
PRESENTED DURING HABEAS PROCEEDING-ALLOWS COURTS TO EXCUSED
LIMITATION BAR ?

3.[QUESTION THREE]: IN LIGHT OF THE MANDATE IN Hainer v.Kemer- &
THE DENIAL OF PRO SE PETITIONER'S REQUEST FOR A COA-DOES THIS
COURT HAVE-[JURISDICTION AND POWER]-TO GRANT CERTIRARI-EXCUSED
LIMITATION BAR-[LIBERALLY CONSTRUED ]-WARNER 'S ACTUALLY INNOCE
-NCE OF NOT HAVING BEEN CONVICTED OF FELONY AGGRAVATED ASSAULT
CONDUCT ELEMENT-[§12.42(d) ]-IN LIGHT OF Borden v-U-S .-ERRONEOUS
_LY INCREASE IN MANDATORY MINIMUM SENTENCE- [FUNDAMENTALLY MIS
CARRIAGE OF JUSTICE-EXCEPTION TO LIMITATION BAR-BOUSLEY ?

Does this court have jurisdiction & power to grant certiorari, excused limitation bar, correct fundamental miscarriage of justice, denial of COA by 5th CIR. Court of Appeals