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?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED : The untrained pro se Appellant respectfully attempts to succinctly present from the trial record, compelling justiciable Constitutional reasons of error for the Writ to issue in this exceptional NO-CRIME case of ACTUAL INNOCENCE involving an Accidental SelfInduced Drug Overdose Death, as Law and Justice would require. (28 U.S.C. § 2248). : The 1-28-19 wholly obscure one-line Court of Appeals ignored denials, 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 Conflicting Judicial abuses.(App.1a) 1. 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 in (1), Castro v. U.S, 540 U.S. 375 (2002), and (2), in Panetti v. Quarterman, 551 U.S. 930 (2007), NON-SUCCESSIVENESS precedents, where upon § 2253 C.O.A.’s issued, prohibited § 2254 District and Appellate Courts from wrongly creating “. . . Troublesome Results...”, “... Procedural Anomalies... ”; “.. Closing Courtroom Doors.”, contrary to Congress intent? (pp. 8-10) Did the Court of. Appeals Panel further deny 22 U.S.C. § 2253 C.O.A. in Conflict of this Court’s controlling “. ACTUAL INNOCENCE...” A.E.D.P.A. Habeas “...Gateway Exception...” substantive Mandate of McQuiggin v. Perkins, 569 U.S. 383 (2013), overruling Troublesome Results and Procedural Anom ii alies, wrongly Closing Courtroom Doors denying Habeas relief? 2. Did the Appellate Panel’s obscure 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? ; _ 8. Does Appellate Panel’s obscure Denials, vio: late compelling Constitutional Questions of Law in Conflict with Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 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? 4. Does Appellate Panel’s obscure 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: Gi) Rights to Remain Silent without Guilty Infringements; ; Gi) &(iv) Structural Prosecutorial Misconduct violations; ii) Structural requested Jury Instruction violations; iti (v) First Amendment Rights to Free Association violations; (vi) Multiple Due Process Admonishment violations; (vii) Sufficiency of Evidence violations. (pp. 19-21) 5. Did the Appellate Panel violate the compelling 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? iv LIST OF PROCEEDINGS United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit No. 18-3015 Thomas Edward Nesbitt, v. Scott Frakes, Defendant-Appellee. Date of Opinion: January 28, 2019 Date of Rehearing Denial: March 27, 2019 United States District Court for the District of Nebraska No. 4:18-cv-3057 Thomas Nesbitt, Petitioner v. Scott Frakes, Respondent. . Date of Judgment: June 19, 2018 ; Date of Memorandum Opinion: May 30, 2018