1. Did the U.S. district Court contravene the requirement of Act 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b) and jdt?

2. When a State Prisoner failed to use available State remedies i.e. § 3 for tenure for properly briefing issues on appeal, but the State appellate Court nevertheless considered the ineffective assistance of Counsel issue on the Merits, is the U.S. district Court foreclosed from asserting the doctrine of Procedural default in a federal habeas proceeding?

3. Assuming that the State appellate Court's action precludes the U.S. district Court from asserting the doctrine of procedural default in the federal habeas Proceedings, then the Petitioner Submit that findings of the State appellate Court and assert the Presumption of Correctness under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1) gives to factual findings by a State trial Court?

4. If the Presumption of Correctness does not accompany the State appellate Court's factual findings, is the petitioner at least entitled to initiate the fairness of the evidence at an evidentiary hearing because he was previously denied a hearing by the U.S. district Court's tactical decision to dismiss matter as time-barred?

5. Did the U.S. district Court apply erroneous standard in evaluating petitioner's claim of actual innocence to contravene the time loop Under the Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)?

6. Can the Petitioner establish by Convincing evidence that the factual determination by the State Court was erroneous and therefore is entitled to the actual exception to the AEDPA statute of limitations?

7. Does the two items of new evidence Counts as new evidence under Schlup and Serves to refute, via clear and Convincing evidence 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254(e)?

8. Does the presumption Codified 28 U.S.C. Court Afford to issues not settled on the Merits by the State Court on applicable grounds and Adequate State assertion?

Question not identified