1. When bad faith is uncovered years after the petitioner fully litigated his initial habeas petition, should a Youngblood claim be considered newly ripened and therefore not subject to the second-or-successive petition requirements of § 2244, consistent with Panetti v. Quarterman, 551 U.S. 930 (2007)?

2. Where a petitioner acted with due diligence and there has been no abuse of the writ, may § 2244(b) be construed to categorically exclude consideration of a meritorious Youngblood claim because the "actual innocence" standard can never be met when the government in bad faith destroyed the "potentially useful" exculpatory evidence?

When bad faith is uncovered years after the petitioner fully litigated his initial habeas petition, should a Youngblood claim be considered newly ripened and therefore not subject to the petition requirements of § 2244, consistent with Panetti v. Quarterman