Whether the District Court erred when it held Lynch was not entitled to the 'fundamental miscarriage of justice' exception

QUESTIONS PRESENTED ; First Question: Whether the District Court erred when it held Lynch was not 4 entitled to the “fundamental miscarriage of justice” exception under the Carrier 5 standard! was contrary to holdings established by the Supreme Court in Schlup v. 6 Delo, 513 U.S. 278, 321, 324, 327-328, 331-332 (1975)? 7 Second Question: Whether the District Court erred when it did not hold that 8 Lynch’s claims, raised in initial-review collateral 9 proceedings in a Utah State court “where there was no counsel” for Lynch, that 10 were procedurally defaulted was contrary to holdings established by the Supreme 11 Court in Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1, 17 (2012)? 12 Third Question: Whether the District Court erred when it made six (6) false 13 statements of fact to deny Lynch the “fundamental miscarriage of justice” exception 14 under the Carrier standard was contrary to the holdings established by the 15 Supreme Court that “[d]ue process guarantees that fundamental fairness essential 16 to the very concept of justice,” Lisenba v. CA, 314 U.S. 219, 236 (1941)? 17 Fourth Question: Whether the District Court erred when it made a 18 conclusion of law for summary judgment on the credibility of new evidence not 19 presented at trial without an evidentiary hearing was contrary to holdings 20 established by the Supreme Court in Schlup, supra, at 332? 21 Fifth Question: Whether the District Court erred when it failed to address 22 ~~ allegations of eleven (11) false statements of fact or law as fraud on the court in 23 Motion to Dismiss Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus was 24 contrary to holdings established by the Supreme Court in Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. 25 Hartford-Empire Co., 332 U.S. 238, 246 (1944) (it “is a wrong against the 1 Murray vy. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478, 496 (1986) (“We think that in an extraordinary case, where a constitutional violation has probably resulted in the conviction of one who is actually innocent, a federal habeas court may grant the writ even in the absence of a showing of cause for the procedural default”) (emphasis added). ? Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963) (where prosecutors unconstitutionally withheld exculpatory evidence from the defense). i ‘ a 26 institutions set up to protect and safeguard the public, institutions in which fraud 27. cannot complacently be tolerated”)? 28 Sixth Question: Whether the District Court erred when it denied Lynch’s 29 ‘three (8) requests for appointed counsel was contrary to the holdings established by 30 =the Supreme Court in Bounds v. Smith, 450 U.S. 817, 822 (1977) (counsel musts be 31 appointed to give indigent inmates a “meaningful appeal” from their convictions’) 32 (emphasis added)? 33 Seventh Question: Whether the District Court erred when it denied Lynch’s 34 request for the prison to provide a Law Library or an adequate Legal Assistance 35 Program to inmates was contrary to holdings established by the Supreme Court in 36 ©. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351 (1996) (‘prison law libraries and legal assistance 37. programs are the means for ensuring “a reasonably adequate opportunity to present 38 claims for violations of fundamental constitutional rights to the courts.” [Bounds, 39 430 U.S.], at 825°)? 40 Eighth Question: Whether the District Court erred when it denied Lynch’s 41 Constitutional right of access to the courts by not granting Lynch’s request for an 42 order to not transfer Lynch to other correctional facilities was contrary to holdings 43 established by the Supreme Court in Bounds, 430 U.S., at 821 (“It is established 44 beyond doubt that prisoners have a constitutional right of access to the courts”). 45 Ninth Question: Whether the District Court erred when it denied Lynch’s 46 constitutional right of access to the courts by not granting Lynch’s request for an 47 order to allow Lynch to purchase computer was contrary to holdings established by 48 the Supreme Court in Bounds, supra? 49 Tenth Question: Whether the Court of Appeals erred when