I WHETHER EXCEPTIONS TO THE AEDPA ONE YEAR TIME LIMITATIONS RENDERED THE DISTRICT COURT'S 2015 DISMISSAL FOR UNTIMELINESS OF CUA'S HABEAS PETITION AND DENIAL OF HIS DISCOVERY MOTION AS MOOT.AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION?

WHETHER PETITIONER'S R. 60(d)(1) MOTION WAS AN INDEPENDENT ACTION THAT WAS N0N:-5UCCESSIVE - THE DISTRICT COURT'S DENIAL OF THAT MOTION DENYING SUCH WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION?

WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURT'S FAILURE TO CONSIDER MATERIAL FACTS AND DIS POSITIVE Legal arguments regarding innocence and a p.c. 12002 weapons ENHANCEMENT WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION' IN THE MATTER OF GUILT V. INNOCENCE; CONSIDERING THE PLETHORA OF DNA ANDiFORENSIC..-EVIDENCE POINTING TO A 3rd PARTY PERPETRATOR, FAILURE BY THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE MEANS AND OPPORTUNITY, THE JURY MISAPPLYING COURT'S INSTRUCTIONS REGARDING "BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT?

WHETHER THE COURT'S FAILURE TO CONSIDER MATERIAL FACTS AND DISPOSITIVE LEGAL ARGUMENTS REGARDING INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL-BY -TRIAL AND APPELLATE ATTORNEY WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION

WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURT'S VIOLATION OF PROCEDURAL RULES IN ITS DENIAL OF PETITIONER'S R. 60(d)(1) MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRE- TION

Whether exceptions to the AEDPA one-year time limitations rendered the district court's 2015 dismissal for untimeliness of Cua's habeas petition and denial of his discovery motion as moot an abuse of discretion