Whether additional DNA testing was wrongfully denied to demonstrate innocence (actual innocence exception) pursuant to the holding in Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U.S. 521 (2011)

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED Whore Lddtionee las Wor WiloWed WW domondcare Ackun ‘\onocence(tarikabe —exeegion) puccoanr es Wehuiagin vi tecKind, Ps Gos. WH (olde. wndiina hy, Sed Same BRAS gerrhione<. AQ WO BakAdck Coucr Bhuse A hotedion 0% BWIN Q, Br Vr PBAd MON aN Deaviyno, ones {po Qa) Meion t . Whore ao Yar dlhva LBS Comduched.. TR Mw bee’ Lanes douse NS Bocc@dion WY, Danlemiag No CVORER QadHonacr’s SAW Laser pueIk WO Hare WoO Whee 1 BS COVse Vac QocrdBoca Baka Agedhade Tounder W%S “UND ex¥ve Voc Xadino,e Cae VadBonee WS BARB. WS Grp Xe C@pieberX Wage Bak Sulose quent Sane WA ¢ ys Ww counsel, — Var% Male Wold) Wokion BB Mw Lover Raper Wawa “pCsbockion Xo Ae da WL mocks ok Oa SHS Manors Appeal wiknouks Hed’ “acarina, LOA, be yeas Me Aodad WW ie HUGKS v Dass, VS. TSA/AVLA 241 Chol Apelor Eco pecdyy! © Ln Wakecmising, B LO® oF Hale Wo medion an a Loves AEN “OHALL D COMAUTION OK Lack edt 2 UGB “pRogmnark Dppeacs *d oe DaIMT BBW Wren Habe B Loadusion of Lav Wr ceaxsonsole “yacst Wed Aak BAe Weare WOKE Cours Basa AS Sasucetion ‘in : VAAL ag, WL Sade bod OY MWodion & 6 WA War Love x Reprzas WAST “AS Wasrcakion Yann, MONA Voc CREOAS Wes MIN Nar. “WOdLowd. ACOATENLASS Bod cov Ac hae Leeann CAGE EC oe Aw VACUO “wRogmen Won DS Ma Loves Ff Hppraid OY SNe epgds Moe LOR’ nape, WR B Meeks warysis (Y Yailes Xo DIA QWRAMAG y ARB (S) wade BA Avs Krous LonQudion w Yay Od (G