1. Whether Court op Appeals A&useo rrs discretion cuhtre ^senior . Circuit judees uuwo mle
mem Be Us ofthe originally assigned diuision hearing a case ARENCT authorized By co^atexro Part-
ici p/rre IKTHE DETERMINATION WHCTHER TO REHEAR THAT CASE IN feANC.^4l7 U fall .61-40*04)???

2. WHETHER OR NGT A FEDERAL CouftToF APPEALS DOES OR DOES NOT RECALLS ITS MANDATE TO REVISIT THEMERfTS #F
an Eacue R Decision denying (MX. relief to state prisoner ,the Court abuses rrs discretion ,unless it acts
TO AUDIO A MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE AS OEflNEO BY OUR HABEAS JURISPRUDENCE ???

3. U)aeth CR Federal Courtof Appeais bv uhth Holoing the dismissal of petitioner 's fed. UJ.HX- pRtm District COORT AMO OENIAL oFCOA APPLICATION IN FAVOR OFTHE A6 oPTe*AS, ATTORNEY For respondent < CONTRARY to U/WT9-
HEAD V. JOHNSON <1 SI 384. it snoolo Be held to have ag used its discretion ???

4. Whether federal Court of Appeals ERBFD td follow reo.ftuLE APP. Proc.35. cohere rrPRoviOES that ^the cl-
EftK SHALLTRAWSflHT MANY SUGGESTION TDTWE' ,JUD6Pf ,#lN ORDER TO FoLUXJU THE PRAP RULE 35TOMAKB A VOTE ON
TH6 ISSUES AND THEREFORE ABUSED ITS DISCRETION W.

5. WHETHER me FRAP 4| authorises astavof mandate Following Ao&nAL ofCOA anothata Court mat stay
THE nflANOATE U/ITHOUT ENTERING AN ORDER <FlfTH CIRCUIT OEClSIONTOOOSO HERE DIO ABUSED ITS OIScREHoN
???

6. Whether Federal Court of Appeals abused its d iscretion . because of juoiualneeueence and ministerial
DOTIES VIOLATION WAS ENOUGH TO VIOLATE PETTI ONER^ DUE PROCESS , A NO ERRIN6 ,THF CoVRT 010 NOT AVOIDED
A miSCARRlAEE OPJUSTICE BASED ON ACLAiM OF ACTUALLY INNOCENT T??

I. Whether Fdoeral Court of Appeals oio nothing to avoid a miscarriage of justice BASED on a claim OF
Actually Innocence and therefore abused rrs discretion ???

8. UJaftmer Feoer AlCcort of Appeals and Oisirict Court erred that Petitioner (YIr. Torres does mot meet
or Reach Further , to con cluoe that he i s FWTineo to an evident ? arv rtearuNB to araue his consti
tutional OJMMS,THEREFORE ABUSED ITS DISCRETION ???

S. Whether . federal court of appeals erred to ADORES

Whether the federal court of appeals abused its discretion