(1.) DID THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT (ERRED) BY DENYING APPELLANT'S MOTION TO STAY (DOCKET ENTRY NO. 4)

(2.) DID THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT (ERRED) BY DENYING APPELLANT'S REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

(3.) DID THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO (ERRED) DISMISSING PETITIONER'S CLAIM NO. 3 RULING THAT THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT HAS NEVER HELD THAT THE SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT COUNSEL OF ONE'S CHOICE EXTENDS TO PROBATION REVOCATION PROCEEDINGS. § 2254 (d)(1).

(4.) THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO (ERRED) DISMISSING EVEN IF THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL OF ONE'S CHOICE DOES APPLY IN A PROBATION REVOCATION PROCEEDINGS, THE IDAHO COURT OF APPEAL'S DECISION - THAT THE TRIAL COURT'S DENIAL OF THE CONTINUANCE DID NOT VIOLATE THAT RIGHT, AND WAS NOT OBJECTIVELY UNREASONABLE UNDER § 2254 (d)(2) AND (d)(1).

(5.) DID THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO (ERRED) DISMISSING PETITIONER'S CLAIM NO. 3 RULING THAT THE FACTUAL DETERMINATIONS OF THE STATE COURT WERE NOT UNREASONABLE BASED ON THE FACTS AND EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD, AND FAILING TO CONSIDER NEW EVIDENCE ON REVIEW DE NOVO SUBJECT TO THE LIMITATION OF § 2254 (e)(2) WHICH CONSISTED OF EVIDENCE BY AFFIDAVIT OF PRIVATELY RETAINED COUNSEL MR. (JOHN REDAL) IN SUPPORT THAT MR. (ELLIS) HAD RETAINED PRIVATE COUNSEL TO DEFEND AGAINST THE PROBATION REVOCATION PROCEEDINGS PRIOR TO THE MARCH 21, 2013 PROBATION ADMIT/DENY TUESDAY NEW DISPOSITION HEARING AND THAT THE PETITIONER MR. (ELLIS) REQUEST FOR A CONTINUANCE WAS MADE IN HONEST EFFORT TO UTILIZE HIS COUNSEL OF ONE'S CHOICE, AND HAD NOT BEEN A QUALITY AND A DELAY TACTIC, OR AN ATTEMPT TO HAVE MINIMALIZED THE PROCEEDINGS.

(6.) DID THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR DISTRICT OF IDAHO (ERRED) DISMISSING THE PETITIONER'S CLAIMS NO. 1, 2, AND 22 AS BEING PROCEDURALLY DEFAULTED FAILING TO REVIEW MR. (ELLIS) CAUSE AND PREJUDICE ARGUMENT UNDER THE LENSE OF MARTINEZ V. RYAN 566 S.CT. 1807 (2012), DUE TO POST-CONVICTION COUNSEL FAILING TO RAISE THE SUBSTANTIVE CLAIMS

(7.) DID THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO (ERRED) DISMISSING BEING PROCEDURALLY DEFAULTED FAILING REVIEW MR. (ELLIS) CAUSE AND PREJUDICE ARGUMENT UNDER THE LENSE OF WILLIAMS V. TAYLOR 529 U.S. 420,

Whether the United States District Court for the District of Idaho erred in denying the petitioner's motion for counsel on post-conviction appeal