Within THE LOW? COVATS OUTRIGHT DENY HABEAS PETITIONERS RiGNT To SHOW ACTVAL INNOCENCE IN
THE DISTRICT COVAT 64 FAILING TO ADJVDICA% THE SCHLUP V, DELO 513 Usd. 293 (1995) ACTVAL
INNOCENCE 1SSVE AS RZAVIRED TO MAKE A _GOTEWAY DETERMINATION, If BeOS THE QVESTIONS OF |

4, Ween THE LowGR Courts Violateo THE FovaizenTH Aminoment BY DENYING TonATN
ZVGENE BRUNSOS RIGHT +o Stow ACtval INNOCENCS IN THe DISTRICT CoveT ?

A, WHETHER Te LowWce CoueTs WO LATED THE Fove teenth AMSNOMENT BY Fang TO ADJVOICAT.
BRINSONS SCULYP ACTVAL INNOCENCE ISSUE ?

3, WYETLA BaRvNsons Novl SXCULPATDAY SVIDENCE OF INNOCENCE MST THe SCHLUP STANDAgD BY
PROVING CONCLYSWSLY THAT NOT VROR, ACTING P4ASONDBLY would HAVZ VoTeOo 1 Fido
Him Gvyiuty Beyono A REASONABLE Dovet, 513 U.S. AT 304 ?

4. WHETNTR BaunSans Newt S¥CULPAtDGA ZVIOSNCS OF INNOLENCE MGT THe SCHLUP StanpAgo BY
PROVING. CONCLUKSLY THat "A Covet CandoT Have CONFIDSWCE IN THE OUTcoms OF THs
Taal (Noe Be) SaNSFIéD Thay THE TRIAL WAS FREE OF NONHARMLESS ConStITUNON AL
40Lon 517 Vise Ae 3b 7

5 Whence Tre Lowz2 CoumtS VioLARO THE Four ReNTH AMENDMENT BY Ealing To AnTup cate
Baunsons Feysea CONSttrUNONAL CLAIM AFTER His NEW SXCuLPATDOY ZVIDENLE OF
INNOZENC. SoTMBLISHED ScHLUe Gateway 2

6. Wien, unner te TumeY vV OWI0 (BiASEO TRIRL TUOLE) STANDARD OF REVIEW THE
STAR TRIAL TVOGS Viotato the Fourtzennt AMiNOMENT AND DePAVeOD Baunson oF
Due PRocess OF LAW BY HAVING "ny Dieéct, Peasonal, [AND SVBSTANTIAL
in [VoLvement'] iN BREACHING A Con(ViCTioN] AGMIAST RIM IN His case 413

Vise AT 593 7?

Whether the lower courts violated the Fourteenth Amendment by denying Petitioner's claim of actual innocence and right to review evidence supporting his innocence