1. DESPITE THE RECORD SHOWING THAT PETITIONER IS FACTUALLY
INNOCENT OF DISTRIBUTING MORPHINE, DID THE SECOND CIRCUIT
ERR IN AFFIRMING THE DISTRICT COURT'S FINAL JUDGMENT TO
DENY PETITIONER'S CLAIM?

2. DID THE SECOND CIRCUIT ERR BY DISCOUNTING PETITIONER'S
NEW EVIDENCE OF HIS 2010-DIAGN0SED TRAUMATIC INJURY CALLING
INTO QUESTION HIS 1994-1995 MENTAL COMPETENCY WITHOUT AN
EVIDENTIARY HEARING AND INSTEAD AFFIRMING THE DISTRICT COURT'S
RULING TO DENY PETITIONER'S CLAIMS BASED ON AN OVERLAPPING
18 YEAR DELAY?

3. DID THE SECOND CIRCUIT ERR BY AFFIRMING THE DISTRICT COURT'S
ADVERSE JUDGMENT BASED ON PETITIONER'S 18 YEAR DELAY IN
FILING HIS CORAM NOBIS CLAIMS WITHOUT CONSIDERING THAT HIS
CHALLENGE TO HIS 1995 DISTRIBUTION OF MORPHINE CONVICTION
COULD NOT HAVE ACCRUED UNTIL -2014 AT WHICH TIME PETITIONER'S
DRUG CONSPIRACY CASE CONVICTION BECAME FINAL AND ONLY THEN
COULD PETITIONER SATISFY ALL THREE REQUISITE PRONGS OF THE
CORAM NOBIS REMEDY?

4. DID THE SECOND CIRCUIT ERR BY FAILING-TO FULLY ADDRESS OR
RESOLVE EACH OF PETITIONER'S RAISED CLAIMS BELOW?

5. DESPITE PETITIONER HAVING EXPUNGED.HIS PRIOR STATE CONVICTIONS
DRASTICALLY REDUCING HIS 1995-IMPOSED MANDATORY GUIDELINES
SENTENCE, DID THE SECOND CIRCUIT ERR BY FAILING?TO CONSIDER
WHETHER PETITIONER'S SENTENCE SHOULD BE REDUCED?

Whether the Second Circuit erred in affirming the district court's denial of petitioner's claims despite evidence of factual innocence, new medical evidence, and an 18-year delay in filing coram nobis claims