Whether there is an impermissible risk of actual bias, likelihood of bias, appearance of bias, or unconstitutional potential for bias on the issue of witness recantation

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW 1. Question One: Whether under the Due Process Clause, there is an impermissible risk of actual bias, likelihood of bias on the part of a trial judge too high to be constitutionally tolerable, appearance of bias, or unconstitutional potential for bias on the issue of witness recantation, when said trial judge earlier had a significant, personal involvement in critical trial ; decisions regarding Petitioner’s case in 2014 that amounts to personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts to now be the decision maker in the . same case, adjudicating the same question, based on the same facts in a later application for state post-conviction relief in light of Williams v. Pennsylvania, 136 S. Ct. 1899 (2016); In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133 (1955)? 2. Question Two: Whether under the Due Process Clause, the lower court applied the wrong legal standard to Petitioner’s recusal motion in light of this Court precedents in Williams v. Pennsylvania, 579 U.S. __, 186 S. Ct. 1899 (2016); Rippo v. Baker, 137 S. Ct. 905 (2017) holding that the proper inquiry is whether “the risk of bias [is] too high to be constitutionally tolerable.”? ' Udoh