1. Was the federal Court required by Federal law to accept as true any of Petitioners factual allegations that were made and supported in federal court, when the state court made its findings against the Petitioner on those facts without first ordering a hearing?

2. Was the states fact-finding procedure deemed unreasonable (Sup Chat 20-25, €4G6.) which meant that the state's factual findings were not binding on federal habeas corpus. see Taylor V. Madclox 1360 Fi3d 992, 100! (4h Liv, 2004)

3. Was Petitioner on federal habeas corpus entitled to an evidentiary hearing when the petitioner established merely a colorable claim for relief and where petitioner never been accorded on evidentiary hearing in the state court see Earp V. Ornesks', 4921 Fi3d S867 (4th Cir.2005).

4. Was the federal Court required by Federal law to grant Petitioner d's covery (€cF8/) of CSZ D. Noonans report of her seized sholy un pellet trom Browns livingroom wall thal the AG was arguing never happened in his answer if discovery was indispensable toa fair round development of material facts. Towisend Vi Sains 372 US. 293 (1903). See. (AG at 3411- 85€EX 30.)

5. was the blooddrops in Browns hallway, enterring his bedroom over and intront of his master dresser and the blood splatter agains t his east bedroom wall combined with the gunshot heard while Brown was oof of his beclroom and Lampbell, summary indicating Brown coming into his bedroom wounded, material evidence kept from the jury. EXNNHB.24.

6. Was Pelitioner en titled to an evidentiary hearing on his motion to amend CECF No8S) Concerning denied Penal Lode Section 105% discovery that lead to the discovery of the evidence ia Petitioners 2017 California Supreme writot habeas Corpus and supported petitioners federal writot habeas.

7. Did ath ologist Stephany frore testify falsely about ated Brown not having an exit wound to his head when her autopsy report indicated he did haveone and did the prosecutor fail to corcect whatwas untrue under the Napue Standard and The district, err by not holding an Evidentiary hearing on the matter.

8. Did petitioner receive a taic drial and effective assistance of trial counsel with all the evidence that was hept trom The jury and clid The district court fail to hold an evidentiary £ 'to See vf hi) did the state sire his black shoes he.ware one hour before the murders in The Walmart video 2 . "y that the prosecutor and my trial aHorney argued Io the jory that L got rid of and 2.) Did the prosecutor present black hothing autth GSR on them that was not the same black and cel my drial aloe socks ane he bebe the merder 'Ton the record.

Was the federal court required to accept petitioner's factual allegations as true when the state court made findings against the petitioner without a hearing?