Did the eleventh circuit court of appeals enter a decision in conflict with decisions of other court of appeals (U.S.C.A.) on the same important matter, by deciding an important federal question, that of counsel's performance and the deprivation of his civil rights under color of authority, in a way that is so far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceeding and the sanctioning of this court supervisory power, of the lower court abused its discretion to not issue a C.O.A. for Mr. Muhammad ineffective assistance of counsel claim?

Whether this court should grant the writ of certiorari and vacate the eleventh circuit court of appeal (U.S.C.A.) opinion and remand to that court for consideration that Mr. Mohammad that is determinative of the issue that require this court to exercise authority in Harris v. Nelson in holding that in it opinion Mr. Muhammad has not shown diligence, or the facts involved would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that but for the constitutional error no reasonable fact finder would have found that Mr. Mohammad was guilty of the underlying offense, and unreasonably acted contrary to federal law in its determination of facts?

Was trial counsel performance ineffective within the meaning of Strickland v. Washington thus depriving Mr. Muhammad?

Did the state of Georgia suborn perjury in providing testimony against Mr. Muhammad pursuant to the 5,13:14 amendment to the U.S. Constitution?

Did employees of the State of Georgia violated Mr. Muhammad civil rights with the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 241,242?

Did employees of the State of Georgia violate Mr.

Whether the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals erred in a decision that conflicts with decisions of other Courts of Appeals on the same important matter, by deciding an important federal question, that of counsel's performance and the deprivation of his civil rights under color of authority, in a way that is so far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings and the sanctioning of such a departure by the lower court as to call for the exercise of this Court's supervisory power