Does the Court of Appeals abuse its discretion in refusing to permit consideration of a vital intervening legal development when petitioner's prior habeas petition precludes him from ever receiving an adjudication of his claims on the merits?

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED : a TL. ORS A eOURT OF APPRALS ABUSE ITS DISCRETION IN RERUSING TO PARMIT . CON SLO BRATION OF AV TAL INTERVBNING LRGAL DEVELOPMENT WHEN PAMURETD _ RE. 30 PRELUDES HABBAS PRITTIONER RROM BVBR RAGELV ING ANT ADSUBICATION OF WIS CLUMS ON THE MERLCS'? . Th. “DOSS ADVERSE CONSERUENCES EDN3T FROM THB CONVICTION JUPPLOLENT TY SRTIRY _ TAR CASE OR CONTROVERSY REQUIREMBNTOR ARNCLE DT 7 ; ms ? . \ . 3