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?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Bryan’s habeas petition presents exceptional circumstances that, if left unresolved, will result in disparate interpretations of the federal Constitution across the several states so that the Constitution may mean one thing in Ohio and another thing in other states. If the Sixth Circuit’s holding in this case is correct, then federal courts are barred from reviewing and unifying the States’ individual interpretations of federal constitutional law in instances where the States voluntarily apply new law retroactively without direction from this court to do so. If the Sixth Circuit’s holding in this case is correct, Bryan may be put to death without any federal court ever reviewing whether the State of Ohio unlawfully infringed upon his federal constitutional rights. The questions presented are: I. 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? Il. 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? i