Whether the petitioner's conviction for first-degree murder lacked sufficient evidence to support the verdict

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 1. Allege “INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE" is FEDERAL QUESTION, Petitioner Mr. JOSE RODRIGUEZ, is not the PRINCIPAL Jury Instructions for count one and two, P.C.§ 187(a), | is not in the record to support the vierdict of FIRST DEGREE MURDER. 2. Allege “NOT TRUE" unanimous jury finding for P.C. § 186.22(b); § 186.22(A); § 190.2(a)(22), is contrary to . the law in effect at the time. Sentence term of 82 years to LIFE. P.C.§ 12022.53(d), provides 50 YEARS TO BE REMOVED. Allege LIFE also to be removed. Allege in conflict to APPRENDI V. N.J.,530 U.S.466,490( 2000) 3. Allege "HARMLESS ERROR" is "NONEXISTANT" from the record in conflict to BRECHT V. ABRAHAMSON, SUPRA, 507 U.S.619; FRY V. PLILER,(2007) 551 U.S.112, 168 L. | Ed.2d.16,127 S.Ct.2321. 4. Allege "ELEMENTS" in conflict to IN RE WINSHIP, 397 U.S. at pp.364 [90 S.Ct.1068,15 L.Ed.2d.368); JACKSON V. VIRGINIA, SUPRA, 443 U.S, at pp.318 (99 S. Ct.2781, 61 L.Ed.2d.560]; U.S. V. GAUDIN, (1995) 515 U.S. 506,---+,115 S.Ct. 2310,2320, 132 L.Ed.2d.444. 5. Allege JURY INSTRUCTIONS is in conflict to DUE PROCESS CLAUSE; U.S. CONSTITUTION FIFTH AMENDMENT; IN RE WINSHIP,397 U.S.358, 364(1970); U.S. V. O'BRIEN, 130 S.Ct.2169, 2174(2010); IN JOSEPH V. COYLE, 469 F.3d.441, U.S. V. CHIANIESE,550 F.2d.1244,1255 b ] : 2 3 6. Allege “REASONABLE DOUBT” distinguishing bet 41 ween “[SJentencing factors" and "{[EJlements of a crime 5 | (that} must be charged in an indictment and proved to a 5 jury beyond a reasonable doubt, is in conflict to WINSHIP 397 U.S. 358,364; SULLIVAN V. LA.,508 U.S.275,278(1993); , 7 | CAGE V. LA.,498 U.S.39,41(1990); FRANCIS V. FRANKLIN, 8 471 U.S.307,317(1985); JACKSON V. VIRGINIA,443 U.S.at ; 9 312-324. 10 7. Allege "INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL" is in conflict to : U.S. CONSTITUTION SIXTH AMENDMENT; FOURT11 | EENTH AMENDMENT; STRICKLAND V. WASHINGTON,466 U.S.668, 12 687-88(1984); HARRINGTON V. RICHTER,131 S.Ct.770(2011); B CULLEN V. PINHOLSTER, 131 S.Ct.1388(2011) ~ 4g 8. Allege district court “ABUSE OF DISCRETION" dismissed a claim on a procedural ground without providing 15 the petitioner an opportunity to develop its factual 16 or legal basis through an evidentiary hearing in conflict 7 to this courts holding in: LAMBRIGHT V. STEWART, SUPRA, 220 18 9. Allege district court “ABUSE OF DISCRTION” in 19 unreasonable deference anaylsis the record i& undisputed 20 presumption of correctness does not apply if the state a1 court did not render a factual finding, either express or implied in conflict to: TOWNSEND V. SAIN,372 U.S. 3 22 | 293, 320, 83 8. Ct. 745, 9 L.Ed.2d. 770(1963); DUE PRO23 CESS AND FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS; U.S. CONSTITUTION FOUR4 TEENTH AMENDMENT. 25 26 27 ; 28