1). In an appeal of a 2254, at the "C.O.A." stage, When the U.S. District Court: accepts the affirmative defense of ' Statute of Limitation violat ion' that's intertwined with petitioner 's ineffective assistance of siejj claim, denying habeas relief, as a summary judgment, did the 5th Circuit abuse it's discretion, when the courtffsiiied. fioifoaus ionissues of ' Time-barr" and "Summary judgment"?(the only issues addressed in the lower court's "C.O.A." "A.E.D.P.A. 's" one-vear statute of limitations, petitioner wasn't afforded the 6th Amendment 's protection under Strickland v. Washington due to counsel filing a "Anders ' brief" pursuant to Anders ifornia, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967) indicating no "Notice" of all the factsM that can be charged upon the attorney, not given to petitioner; was it an abuse of discretion of the district court to not find counsel 's "Anders' brief", as a "impediment to filing an application" uundar 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(B)?—V .

v. CalWith regards to a no merits brier under Anders v. California, 87 S.Ct. 1396j can a claim of insufficiency of the evidence pursuant to Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979), ever be "Wholly frivolous" or without merits?

2.

Whether the 5th Circuit abused its discretion in denying habeas relief based on the statute of limitations and summary judgment issues