FIRST QUESTION PRESENTED : DOES THE DISTRICT COURT AND FIFTH CIRCUIT'S
RULING CONFLICT WITH Casey v. Lewis , 518 U.S. 343 n.3 (1996), /.WHEN
HOLDING THAT PETITIONER COULD NOT PRESENT A NONFRIVOLOUS ARGUABLE
CLAIM TO THE'. STAIElHABEASi-.COURT TO APPOINT HIM COUNSEL fER Trevino
v. Thaler , 569 U.S. 413 (2013), TO PROPERLY PRESENT HIS SUBSTANTIAL
INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF TRIAL COUNSEL (IATC) CLAIM(S) OR EXCUSE
HIS PROCEDURAL ERROR?

SECOND QUESTION PRESENTED : DOES THE DISTRICT COURT AND FIFTH CIRCUIT'S
RULING CONFLICT WITH Trevino , WHEN HOLDING THAT TREVINO IS INAPPLI
CABLE TO PETITIONER'S CASE?

THIRD QUESTION PRESENTED : DOES THE DISTRICT COURT AND FIFTH CIRCUIT'S
RULING CONFLICT WITH BUCK v. Davis . 580 U.S. 100 (2017), WHEN HOLDING
THAT THE RULE 60(b)(6) COURT DID NOT HAVE TO REVIEW THE MERITS OF
PETITIONER'S SUBSTANTIAL IATC CLAIMS BECAUSE Buck IS INAPPLICABLE
TO PETITIONER 'S CASE?

FOURTH QUESTION PRESENTED: DOES THE DISTRICT COURT AND FIFTH CIRCUIT'S
RULING CONFLICT WITH Bounds v. Smith , 430 U.S. 817 (1977); and Lewis,
518 U.S. 342 (1996), WHEN HOLDING THAT NOTWITHSTANDING THE UNCON
STITUTIONAL PRISON LAW LIBRARY RULES AND POLICIES WHICH PROHIBITS::
PRISONERS TO TALK AND HELP EACH OTHER PREPARE HABEAS PETITIONS AND
THERE BEING NO PERSON TRAINED IN LAW WORKING IN THE LAW LIBRARY,
SUCH DEFICIENCIES DID NOT DENY PETITIONER ACCESS TO THE COURTS?

Does the District Court and Fifth Circuit's ruling conflict with Supreme Court precedents regarding ineffective assistance of counsel claims, appointment of counsel, and access to courts?