Whether the United States Court of Appeals erred when it agreed with the district court that the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was without merit, that the claim of insufficient evidence was procedurally defaulted and without merit, and that the sentencing claim was not cognizable on federal habeas review

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED lL. Wihrerthec the United States Court of Appeals erred when wy agreed with the diskeich couch “that the claim of Ineffective —assrstoance of wrercit thatthe chat a -6f-— insufSicien® evidence was Procedurally defaulted and withovd merit, and thor the Sentencing claim was noacognizable on federal habeas review.” (GtW Ciccuit Opinion, p.2), For this question, Petitioner submits his argumend in Hhe lower fesecal courks, a8 if Sroted in Me “Reasons for Granting the Petition” seckion Vecbetim 2. , Should photo Spread Vaeankificakions »ymade more than 24 hours after a Crime Occurs » be excluded as evidence duUriAg aay Ceiminal 44 ol due to its inerrant unc eliabili ky and based on iks failuce to pass the Daubert test. Should due er ocess Pring) ples requice the stotes +o recocd Aheic inveccegatlions | which Would allow the Skate and Sedecal Coucyxys *o beter delermine wheAlhec Olleged confessions to criminal cases wece tainted, Unreliable , and doc iavo\un* acy,