IS THE STATE COURT'S FINDING THAT CLAIMS ONE AND TWO ARE PROCEDURALLY DEFAULTED ADEQUATE TO BAR FEDERAL REVIEW OF THOSE CLAIMS?

DOES THE STATE COURT'S DISPOSITION OF CLAIMS ONE AND TWO AUTHORIZE DE NOVO REVIEW OF THOSE CLAIMS IN THE DISTRICT COURT?

IS THE EXISTENCE OF APPLICABLE CLEARLY ESTABLISHED SUPREME COURT LAW REQUIRED TO GRANT RELIEF ON CLAIMS ONE AND TWO?

WOULD A REASONABLE JURIST AGREE THAT THE ADMISSION OF OTHER CRIMES EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE VIOLATED DUE PROCESS UNDER CIRCUIT PRECEDENT?

COULD REASONABLE JURISTS AGREE THE STATE COURT'S REJECTION OF CLAIM THREE WAS CONTRARY TO OR AN UNREASONABLE APPLICATION OF SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT OR INVOLVED AN UNREASONABLE DETERMINATION OF THE FACTS?

WAS THE STATE COURT DECISION CONTRARY TO, OR AN UNREASONABLE APPLICATION OF, CHAPMAN V CALIFORNIA AND ITS PROGENY OR AN UNREASONABLE DETERMINATION OF THE FACTS?

DID THE ERRORS HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL AND INJURIOUS EFFECT ON THE VERDICTS?

Whether the state court's procedural default finding bars federal review of claims one and two, and whether the admission of other crimes evidence violated due process