Did the Third Circuit err in rendering petitioner's Post Conviction Relief Act Petition untimely and 'THE END OF THE MATTER,' without the Pennsylvania Supreme Court rule that petitioner had been given proper written notice of the final judgment of sentence order, or whether petitioner 'has alleged and proved' that petitioner fell within any statutory exception

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED (1) Did the Third Circuit err i rendering petitioners's Post Conviction Relief Act Petition untimely and "THE END OF THE MATTER," without. the Pennsylvania Supreme Court rule that: : (a) Petitioner had been:given a proper written notice of the final judgment of sentence order, of February 12th, 1995, pursuant to Pa-R.App-P #108(a)(1), (b) Or whether petitioner "has alleged and: proved" that petitioner fell within any statutory exception to 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§9545(b)(1) (4)-(iii), Conflicts with Jeminez Vs. Quarterman, 129 S. Ct. (2009). : (2) Where the’ Third Circuit decision not to accept the Seventh and Ninth Circuits decisions in accepting "newly presented" evidence, is a recognized split between the Third/Ninth Circuits over what counts as "new evidence under the Schlup Vs. Delo, 115 S. Ct. 851 (1995) standard, Versus "newly presented" evidence under United States Vs. Davies, 394 F. 3d 182, @ 191 (3rd. Cir. 2005). (3) Whether the Third ‘Circuit decision in finding that petitioner should have filed a Protective Habeas Corpus Petition, where 42 U.S.C.A. §2244(d)(2), is tolled until July 25th, 2004, running the 1-year statute of limitation period through July 25th, 2005, despite the evidence necessary for filing the PCRA Petition were Unavailable, would still require. asking the District Court to stay & obey that federal habeas proceedings until state remedies are exhausted, is an important federal law that, should be settled by the Supreme Court. . Li :