Whether a single district court and circuit court judge can entertain a second successive 2254(b) petition when the second application is a continuation of the initial habeas application and 2244(b) does not bar a second 2254 once the claim ripens

QUESTIONS PRESENTED : For the first time under the extraordinary rare facts of petitioner case where an district court Judge and a United States Circuit Judge both agree with Malone on the end of justice of 2254(b) : and Rule 9(b) where the rule require federal court to entertain an successive petition only where the prisoner supplements his constitutional claim with an colorable showing of Factual Innocent . can an single District Court and a circuit court Judge entertain and 2™ successive 2254(b) petition when the 2™ application is a continuation of the initial habeas application 2244(b) does not bar a second 2254 once the claim ripens. See Penetti v. Quartman, 551 U.S. 930 (2007). Where in the district Malone is being held it's an conflict on the 1966 and 1976 Amendments of 2244(b) Where the 1966 and 1976 amendment retains “the end of justice” provision from the old statute but the act including the provision now found in 2244(b) became effective in April 1996 under the A-E-D-P-A do not where in Mcquiggin v. Perkins, 133 S.Ct. 1924 (2013) as an Pro Se prisoner pointed this out to the District Court and the Appeal court that this court supports petitioner view of the law of this court where by refusing to consider this petition the court thereby would endorse a fundamental miscarriage of justice because it would require that an individual who is actually innocent to remain imprisoned. ;