Whether an alternate triggering date of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996's 1-year statute of limitations, and equitable tolling, is available

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 1. WHETHER AN ALTERNATE TRIGGERING DATE OF THE ANTITERRORISM , AND EFFECTIVE DEATH PENALTY ACT OF 1996'S 1-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, AND EQUITABLE TOLLING, IS AVAILABLE TO A PRO SE PETITIONER WHO IS ENGAGED IN ONGOING INVESTIGATIONS INTO POTENTIALLY MERITORIOUS CLAIMS OF INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF TRIAL COUNSEL WHICH WERE NOT RAISED ON DIRECT APPELLATE REVIEW BY COUNSEL; AND, WHETHER THERE IS AN EQUITABLE GRACE PERIOD AVAILABLE AFTER THE PETITIONER HAS CONCLUDED THOSE INVESTIGATIONS, IN ORDER FOR HIM TO PREPARE AND PRESENT HIS NEW CLAIMS BEFORE THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT? 2. WHETHER THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN FAILING OR REFUSING TO GRANT THE PETITIONER AN ALTERNATE TRIGGERING DATE : AND EQUITABLE TOLLING OF THE ANTITERRORISM AND EFFECTIVE DEATH PENALTY ACT OF 1996'S 1-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATION, WHERE HE HAD DEMONSTRATED TO THAT COURT THAT HE HAD ACTIVELY BEEN ENGAGED IN ONGOING PRO SE INVESTIGATIONS FOCUSED ON HIS TRIAL COUNSEL'S DEFICIENT AND PREJUDICIAL PERFORMANCE; AND, WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN FAILING OR REFUSING TO GRANT AN EQUITABLE GRACE PERIOD, AFTER THE INVESTIGATIONS HAD CONCLUDED, FOR THE PETITIONER TO PREPARE AND PRESENT HIS NEW CLAIMS BEFORE THAT COURT? : 3. WHETHER THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN FAILING OR REFUSING TO GRANT AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING ON THE ISSUE OF UNTIMELINESS OF THE PETITION; OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, GRANT A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY (COA) SO THAT THE PETITIONER : MIGHT HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO CHALLENGE THE UNTIMELINESS RULING MADE BY THE DISTRICT COURT, IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINETH CIRCUIT? -i. 4. WHETHER THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ERRED IN FAILING OR REFUSING TO GRANT A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY (COA) ON THE ISSUE OF UNTIMELINESS UNDER THE ANTITERRORISM AND EFFECTIVE DEATH PENALTY ACT OF 1996'S 1-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATION, BECAUSE THE PETITIONER HAD DEMONSTRATED THAT HE WAS ENGAGED IN ONGOING INVESTIGATIONS : INTO POTENTIALLY MERITORIOUS CLAIMS AND WAS ENTITLED TO A EQUITABLE GRACE PERIOD AFTER CONCLUDING INVESTIGATIONS IN : ORDER TO PREPARE AND PRESENT HIS NEW CLAIMS FOR RELIEF? . /// /// /// /// . /// /// /// /// /// /// /// ; /// , /// /// /// /// . /// /// //1 /// . -ii