Whether a federal appellate court can substantially change its prior judgment to intentionally sabotage a petitioner being able to file a subsequent habeas petition

QUESTIONS PRESENTED (1)Whether a federal appellate court can substantially change its prior judgment to intentionally sabotage a petitioner being able to file a subsequent habeas petition; changing its decision from: “[R]easonable jurists could not debate the correctness of the district court’s ruling that Brooks had failed to exhaust his state remedies.” Brooks v. Archuleta, 681 Fed. Appx. 705, 706 (10 Cir. 2017); To: “No reasonable jurist could debate the district court’s dismissal on procedural grounds.” Brooks y. Hanson, 741 Fed. Appx. 599, 600 (10" Cir. 2018)? (2)Whether the egregious, ever changing reasoning by the Tenth Circuit to preclude having to rule on the merits of Petitioners habeas corpus application is in direct conflict with this Court’s precedent set in Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000). (3) Whether a federal court substantially changing its prior holding improperly deprived petitioner of adequate appellate review? i (3) Whether Rules 35(c)(3)(VI) and (VII) of the Colorado Rules of Criminal Procedure and Colo. Rev. Stat. § 16-5-402 are independent and adequate state grounds to deny federal habeas relief and whether the Tenth Circuit’s decision in this case in in direct conflict with Cone v. Bell, 556 U.S. 449 (2009)? _ PARTIES The petitioner is Jason Brooks, a prisoner being held at the Sterling Correctional Facility in Sterling, Colorado. The respondents are Phil Weiser, attorney general of the State of Colorado, and Matthew Hanson, the Warden of the Sterling Correctional Facility.