Does the Appellate Court's obscure Panel denials violate the 1996 A.E.D.P.A. Constitutional Due Process question in conflict with the Certiorari decisions of this Court?

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED . oe ; ; ' = (Preface ) , oe The untrained pro’ se Appellant respectfully attempts to succinctly present from the trial record, compelling justificable Constitutional reasons of error for the Writ to issue in this exceptional NO-CRIME case of ACTUAL . . INNOCENCE ‘involving an. Accidental Self-Induced Drug Overdose Death, as Law _ _ and Justice would require... (28 USC § 2243). | ae The 1-28-19 wholly obsecure one-line Court of Appeals ignored denials, ee thoroughly departed from any accepted course of Jurisprudence norms, in . ° direct Conflict with this Court's controlling precedents, emphatically ; _ calling: for the attended exercise of Certiorari authority to resolve these ; ' Gonflicting Judicial abuses. —S (see Appx: A & B) , 7 oe J-A-1). First Question: Does the Appellate Court's obsecure Panel ; _ ° Denials, violate the 1996 A.E.D.P.A. Constitutional Due Prosess _ : Question in Conflict with the Certiorari Decisions of this Court in (1), CASTRO v. U.S., 540 US 375 (2002), and (2), in PANEITI. v. QUARTERMAN, 551 US 930 (2007), NON-SUCCESSIVENESS precedents, 7 sy where upon §2253 C.0.A.'s issued, prohibited § 2254 District and i ' Appellate Courts from wrongly creating ".. .Troublesome Results...", . "..Procedural Anamolities...", '"s.: Closing Courtroom Doors...", a ee contrary to Congress intent? | oo (pp. 8-10) . ; So 7 0 TeA+2)2 Did the Court of Appeals Panel further deny §2253 C.0.A.an + in Conflict of this. Court's controlling "...ACIUAL INNOCENCE..." = oe A.E.D.P.A. Habeas "... Gateway Exception..." substantive Mandate of © a | MeQUIGGIN v. PERKINS, 569 US 383 (2013), overruling Troublesome oo ‘Results and Procedural Anamolities , wrongly Closing Courtroom ae “ 7 ae Doors denying Habeas relief? . (pp. 10-11) . I-B) "Second Question: Did the Appellate Panel's obsecure Denials, violate the Constitutional JEOPARDY Question of "DIRECT ESTOPPEL ISSUE PRECLUSION Law, concerning Nebraska's uncontroverted, Directed Verdicts of the alternative Felony Murder charge and all its underlying "ATTEMPTED" foreclosed Acquitted Motive offenses, in Conflict with this Court's and its own Circuit Court's Stare Decisis Directed Verdict Acquittal precedents? (pp. 11-12) I-C) Third Question: Does Appellate Panel's obsecure Denials, violate : compelling Constitutional Questions of Law in Conflict with BRADY v MARYLAND, 373 US 83 (1963), substantial Trial safeguards upon State suppressed material and exculpatory vital evidence, diligently uncovered, that should have resulted in a very different outcome upon a confident verdict by an untainted Jury? (pp. 12-19) I-D) Fourth Question: Does Appellate Panel's obsecure Denials, violate compelling Constitutional Questions of Law, separate and apart from the forestated Trial errors, of INEFFECTIVENESS of Trial and Appellate Counsel's deficient prejudicial performances denying a fair trial, ; in utter conflict with this Court's and its own Circuit Court's , controlling Ineffectiveness precedents, upon: (?) : (i)Rights to Remain Silent without Guilty Infringements; (ii). & (iv)>. Structural. Prosecutorial Misconduct violations; (iii)Structural requested Jury Instruction violations; (v)First Amendment Rights to Free Association violations; (vi)Multiple Due Process Admonishment violations; (vii)Sufficiency Of Evidence violations. (pp. 19-21) It Fifth Question: Did the Appellate Panel violate the compelling ; | (ii) q Constitutional substantive Due Process Law vital to all Appellant's ; forestated prejudicial infringements to a fair trial, when rendering ; Conflicting Denials to this Court's and other Appellate Courts' controlling precedents, to accord and conduct EVIDENTIARY HEARINGS whenever Burden of Proof is on Movant as in this case at Bar? (pp. 21-22) (iii)