Whether the lower federal courts erred in determining that newly available evidence, in the form of affidavit of co-defendant's attorney, did not meet the requirements of 28-U.S.C-2244(d)(1)(D)

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED , Whether the lower federal courts erred in determining that newly . available evidence, in the form of affidavit ofico-defendant's attorney, John Nathan Strak, did not meet the requirements of 28 U.S.C. §2244(d)(1)(D), and, therefore, Ramirez's habéas “claim: that the guilty plea entered as to Count Two, paragraph B. of the indictment, was the result of coercion on the part of trial coun-2 : . sel, was time-barred. Whether affidavit discovered in=the-:course of initial collateral review containing new:information regarding Ramirez's ‘claim that the guilty plea entered as to Count Two, paragraph B. of the indictment, was the result of coercion, coastitutes newly discovered . evidence under the guidelines of 28 U.S.C. §2244(d)(1)(€D).