Whether the classification made by the Fifth Circuit Court in Colley v. Sattizahn, 130 F.3d 496 (5th Cir. 1997) constitutes a violation of clearly established federal law, as well as a violation of petitioner's due process rights under 28 U.S.C. 2254(d)(1), when federal habeas was timely filed but later barred due to the Fifth Circuit's made-up rule

No question identified. : 1) Bes She Clacifuication made by this Court jagooa)lulin 5, Coley d. Sattald Jaa 8.64. 3134 consttute the SLircuit Court as being contary te Cheacly 2 sfabhih ed Federal VD as oellas wn Lect lio lation of fatito nec bles sah S dle (UOCLE. 115 hts. when indeed federal Habeas was timely » Let ash, Lyme barred because of fhe S4Cir court ryade ip cule (Kegnrdless of uhea Landete_(ssises ),,7 2B) foes atrial leurs, ( beater othictive asctictance, when he foils 4: haltAll do. n VS Yas) AGL Aus ‘ eta. ? t * ¢ e e Site es Cicursice a l fa e ininchi A) ttis client 1s sucttecing from o. present serious reental:Mnesses. 2) Dehzopheente (QHisclieat si elusianal and tries to Commit stricide(ching trial peteediag Clete mmeatal [Minresses (QVTERL Counsel wits advised ta advance of trisl his client pected mare _ Medical Pelp!) aad ptobe agai by De Tedoed (Expert) Glaing trial fareceediag . 2 because State Court of at eEdyis withest jucisdition ts ertectain an application foc lL01 until usuance Of mandate on cect aepeal, but the bt. Cercit Court stort, fhe lye limitation Chek toc PHY) fegard less of uhen Mandate 1ssurs, Ale. they Violetedy Artitioners due process sights undeo dS Uses $3ad OM Dilhether fhe uaceso ved Cort |ict amongs Taersts oF reason uithinte Sth Cirtuit Court ond other Sister Circuit Courts about WS.L5. 2 $2244 7 Te be Coatinue next payer is denying Pelcbioners de process 5 and 4 merdments, wher Ye Cin lurt [Mace Aime Lac on Constitutional merits an those whe Play not kee tame Lacred te te a tebsenable Passi bilty of muscen St ruin of the Statuary 7 S)ilbether st would be an site thes debateble,amangs ang Reasonable Turis fod Ca4 ect fraced ured fine Ser_on Constitutionel merits : TAC}, Where trial | Counsel [Fé MALY. l te conceal hic vielatian of the SH Gf” amend: under Pike v Robiian 365.4, £36,642 tnd Drope v. Missour! 95. 5.4 EG (41S) as-aell as 6 amtad under Strickland v.Washingten (04 5, Ct. 2082-1984), uacein factual basis ot fhe Claims ¢jere adegatately Shawed © a ; C)ilhethar bes tioner tlessnen wes indeed entitled 4, Eau tase Tole tor ali tHe time thet Texas Court of Criminal Appeals held hic opphiatisa boc Llandate December (4% Joist a | Hiab bis appeae jn He copbn of tha oss aa tre loves agen. _Lorre Dats | Disce tar (TDCI) ~ Respondent oe . | a Fagen 06 Couzens OPCW S BELOW nun mannensnn eee flgele Turis DICTION nnanenesancncee MOQ LousrirutionAe Aun SrATuT ORY beotisiens MLV ».Qage44 STATEMENT OE THe ONE narnnn race nnee foge Be Kensons fon GRANTING THe WRT snnonseasenss fice 18 COMA US) Qe Dex To Abreu pcre Kopenaix B~Ticdomank drt achcrder and Bandage heconmerchisn Appuix CWMoadntes orckring Mot direct eppenl is tinal Afeewvin D Exhibits of Fac supporting Questnns #). tua #5, sith tnletl detailed sumaary of Alt exhibits ee State. se: Larter Stocte 5/2). Sul. 323, 22¢(Texlarin App ler) aye &. bx farte Unk Antheny 125th 3d 412 Terbem App) (ase §. Ee dleal tase: Nyland 1: Moore 26 30! 1204. age &. Coyne 4 Kérana Cll £. 3d $70 slice é. _ Van Ducenv. Cockrel{ Mo. 2-228 14 Leo! Age &33 (DG 7. Sugreme Court: Cavey v Sk fold [aoS.Ch. 2l3€(ge28) (203k /. Prope. Missouci 95 S.Ct. 6 (1718) Auestin * 5, fatev Robinson 8, S.Ct. Gb,84 Quashyon#S, = Ataiklend v Washington 154 $04. F252 (1166) Gluestion #S, tabutte, And Rules: USLS.29§ BOW OIA) anDQ) cage 4, 5, USCS, PS § B54 (LINO) (dge_& 239A) Question 3. _ US.0. MG 8 foal page Sard Quastin® 5 ee a Tn Th Ferrin For Wert OF Centiogags DUO giant below The opinion ot His United States court of appealt Oppeart a