Did the lower courts err in failing to properly review and conclude that the prosecution's withholding of exculpatory and impeachment evidence favorable to Bartko's defense, coupled with the conscious presentation of false or perjured testimony from the Government's principal witness, could have resulted in a reasonable likelihood of a different result sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome of Bartko's trial, contrary to Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) and Wearry v. Cain, 136 S. Ct. 1002 (2016)?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW. The questions presented are: I. Did the lower courts err in failing to properly review and conclude that the prosecution’s withholding of exculpatory and impeachment evidence favorable to Bartko's defense, coupled with the conscious presentation of false or perjured testimony from the Government’s principal witness, could have resulted in a reasonable likelihood of a different result sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome of Bartko's trial, contrary to Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) and Wearry v. Cain, 136 S. Ct. 1002 (2016)? Il. Did the lower courts err in failing to find that the Government's knowing, or reckless, presentation of the false and/or perjured testimony at trial of the Government's principal witness violated Bartko's rights to Due Process and this Court's decision in Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959), and that the Government's presentation of this evidence prejudiced Bartko's defense? II. Did the lower courts err in failing to properly assess Bartko's gateway claim of actual innocence, considering the district court's errors of law in determining Bartko's Supplemental Brady Claims to be untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(1), but failing to consider the timeliness of the claims under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(4), and considering the district court's summary repudiation of the sworn recantation statements given by the Government's key trial witness? i