Whether district court's decision to deny petitioner's areas autonomy is barred by statute of limitation of the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) permissible or wrong?

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED . — A) WHETHER DISTRICT CouRT’s DECISION To DENY PETITIONER'S AREAS AUTON _ AS BARRED By STATUTE OF LyaiTATION OF THE fumdTERRORISM Madd EFFECTIVE Death feyndry Aer (AEDPA ) PeBaTaaLe OR WRONG 7 0) WHETHER THE REQUREMENTS POTHE CHARGES Li87EO bal THE MET MELT 1140760-13 Fituné 70 REGISTER OATES PETITIONERS EX POST Fete Laut RIGHTS ? 3 ) WHETHER PETITIONERS EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW CLAIM 18 PROPERLY Berea THE Covrr ? oe | 4) WHETHER TEXAS SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION STATUTE ART. @2..002 7K La, . Proc. 13 AppLizo EQUALLY AmORPRST ALL SEX OF FEUDERS ru THe Orne? »@ WHETHER SEX OFFENDERS WiTH CONVICTIONS PRIOR TO SEPT.1,1970 ARE SimiLArcy SITUATED AS SEX OFFENDERS WHITH CONVIETIONS QUOR AFTER SEpe. | | 4470? | | 6) WHETHER Thé pisteT Cour 'S DBCISIONS 13 “continary 70” GrzAR Ano ESTABLISHED FEDERAL LS 1U10/0R “UNREAB OU ALY APPLIED JUPREME COURT PRECEDENTS To PETITIONER'S aasE? 2) WHETHER PETMONERS STATE CouRT Cou8el's PERFOKMIRALE $0 peFieaT. AS Te CousTITUTE {NEFFECT IE ASSISTANG? OF COnlseL. ? ; j , \ QueSTION (3) PRESENTED Cont. 9 WHETHER PETITIONERS INDICTINENT GAUSE NO. 11-O7b0-13 FAILURE Te REGISTER, 18 FUMDAMENILLY WIYAL IOP IA0? | 9) WHETHER PETITIONER'S CONVICTION WAS BASED bal A COAISTITTIONALLY INVALID STATUTE ART. 62.002 7K.C.CR. Feo, 2° . PB) WHETHER, TUAISTSOOF REABOM WOULD Find PETITIONERS HABEAS CLAIM ME A SUBSTANTIAL SHoutING OF THe PENAL OF A ConsrTUTOMAL Rint? N) WHETHER TEARS SEK OFFENOER REGISTRATION STATUTE Akt beh 008 7X. C.0g, Feo, Deny Petitiquce Auld SEX OF FEAIEZeS LIKE Hing Epunr FRomixTioy OF The han 7