Whether the court of appeals clearly abused its discretion and deprived the Petitioner of his constitutional rights to Due Process under the 14TH Amendment to the United States Constitution when it fail to consider and address the Petitioner's issue of whether he was required to seek authorization fo file a second or successive federal habeas petition when the constitutional claims presented were based on a newly enacted State post-conviction statute relating to certain scientific evidence that was not available at the time the Petitioner filed his initial federal habeas corpus petition?

Whether the court of appeals clearly abused its discretion by holding that the Petitioner did not make the necessary showing for authorization to file a second or successive federal habeas corpus petition under Title 28 U.S.C Section 2244(b)(2)(A) or (B)(i) and (ii) when the newly discovered evidence conclusively showed that the factual predicate for the claim as discovered by the Petitioner on August 11, 2022 could not have been discovered previously through the exercise of due diligence at the time the initial federal habeas petition was filed; and the facts underlying the claim if proven and veiwed in the light of the evidence as a whole would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that for the constitutional error of the prosecution's use of perjury or false testimony no reasonable fact finder would have found the Petitioner guilty of Capital Murder when the new evidence no longer supported the of an intentional Murder or Homicide in the case that presented more than a borderline case to proceed further?

Whether the court of appeals clearly aubsed its discretion and deprived the Petitioner of his constitutional rights to Due Process under the 14TH Amendment to the United States Constitution when it fail to consider and address the prominent and propriety of the Petitioner's newly discovered evidence and claim of actual innocence that was not predicated on a freestanding claim of actual innocence and was recognized by this Court in Kuhlman v. Wilson, 106 S.Ct. 2616 (1986) for the prupose of havipg considered a second or successive federal habeas corpus petition?

Whether the court of appeals clearly abused its discretion and deprived the Petitioner of his constitutional rights to Due Process under the 14th Amendment