§ 2255 within one 1) Did Beasley overcome procedural default when he filed
year of the Supreme Court decision in Davis which was a new rule of law and
newly discovered evidence, and the Court of Appeals itself stated that he
has made a prima facie showing that his application satisfies § 2255(h)?

2) Did the Sixth Circuit err when it denied Beasley relief to vacate his 924(c)
conviction in Count 3 when Davis invalidates his 924(c) conviction, and the
Court itself admits Beasley is actually innocent?

3) Did the District Court err when it denied Beasley relief because he did not
prove innocent of Count 5, which is a dismissed count that was never rein
stated pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3296?

4) Does, in Beasley's case, enforcing Bousley's standard that a defendant who
has been proven innocent must also prove innocent of "equally serious" dis
missed charges, conflict with the reinstatement process dictated by 18 U.S.C.
§ 3296, because it allows the government to obtain the benefits of a rein
stated charge while circumventing the responsibility of having to meet the
requirements of § 3296?

5) Does the statute of limitations in 18 U.S.C. § 3282 bar Beasley's dismissed
counts from reinstatement due to the passing of the allotted 5 years?

6) The Court of Appeals also stated, "A petitioner may also overcome procedural
default by showing that he is actually innocent, which Beasley did not show
that he is actually innocent of Count 5." If dismissed Count 5 was not
reinstated, and if reinstatement is barred due to the passing of the statute
of limitations period, do these two factors suffice to prove Beasley is
actually innocent of Count 5, thus overcoming procedural default?

7) Since the District Court denied Beasley relief by saying, "Beasley's Davis
claim is procedurally defaulted because he did not raise the claim's
underlying argument on direct appeal. Indeed he did not file a direct
appeal," Would this Court remand Beasley back to the District Court so
that he may ask for an extension of the deadline to file a direct appeal
so that Beasley can present his Davis claim on direct appeal in order to
prevent a manifest injustice because he is actually innocent?

8) Does this Court conclude that Beasley's due process rights have been violated,
and that he should be granted vacation of his 924(c) conviction in Count 3?

Did Beasley overcome procedural default under § 2255 when filing within one year of the Davis Supreme Court decision, and is he entitled to relief for his 924(c) conviction based on actual innocence?