Whether 28 U.S.C. § 2244 prevents a federal habeas court from reviewing a state court's voluntary and independent retroactive application of a new rule of federal constitutional law in order to ensure the uniform interpretation of federal constitutional law across all states?

II. Whether Bryan's Hurst claim became newly-ripened within the meaning of Panetti v. Quarterman, 551 U.S. 930 (2007), and Stewart v. Martinez-Villareal, 523 U.S. 637 (1998), thereby permitting federal habeas review of the claim in a second-in-time first habeas petition, when the state of Ohio retroactively applied a new rule of constitutional law to Bryan's case giving him his first opportunity to litigate and exhaust the claim in state court?

Whether 28 U.S.C. § 2244 prevents a federal habeas court from reviewing a state court's voluntary and independent retroactive application of a new rule of federal constitutional law in order to ensure the uniform interpretation of federal constitutional law across all states?