Whether rights generated by federal procedural and substantive due-process prohibit the state from concluding direct review

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED (Fa uTy oF DIRECT even) DETERMINATION L) Whether rights, during the process, generated by federal procedural and substantive che procesy” of Au preser''bed particu las ly by the protected! libecty interest jn 28 ux.c. § 2244(DOA), prohibits be state ia Ue continual [shel,* of ‘isda ting, the state's conelusian of direct review “as" 7/23/13, tie He stste’ benef tof bne-bar” which " ncoag tel conduct” “cleprives the setual certboract “denral. Cate of ols; [38 as 4 motler of record, reported, ¥ dhis Qurt upon denal of Ue direct crimnal appeal petition Ar weit of c0octiorari to the Jupreme Qurt of Nevada on” Ootobee Is, 2013" US. case to. 13-6031, (ree APPENDIC CK Coat: Denied) 2) Whether the Ithel,* results ia prejudice tb pebrtiner's’ [busty interest by section 2244 (HN)(A) sewvlting in an wanarranted denial of 4 timely state pot habeas actor? demonstater ged caure and excuse to overcome the time bar currently imposed, whea the Supreme Court of Neveda individual caused Che stale — im posse! inpeclinent, ax the extemal hreo, therefire werranting dhe granting of bhi writ of bertiag ri withig ZB u50-% Zl, Hut The Mikel of He misdele of tnality’ by the 50H. on He stabe eM /ecr currently reflects Ue coackisean of olivect review “as ovles [ia by the (ssuant oh tag he aren ig supe let Tha), © FN2 Betre expiratin of the (9) clay winch the Stele in Foingel open U.S . Supreme Court Rafe B.1 and 28 u:8-0-$ ziotlc) by / ssuing, Lhe ohrecf apeel teaiHitur thereby statin tle eollaters/ elck (Wes 34. 726 contrary t.zzat XN) (GA cays premature rosulStg ia the timely state hahear Den W814 bein dmebeged, ( see Atrenbix DY Nevis Kprine Gurt Doctot Sheet £0163(07423(3 kembb ber 1890ep~.)