Did Montgomery v. Louisiana announce a new watershed rule of criminal procedure that applies retroactively when ruling the Supremacy Clause applies to state review as defined by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(C)?

Questions Presented for Review First Question: Did Montgomery v. Louisiana also announce a new watershed rule of criminal procedure that applies retroactively when ruling the Supremacy Clause applies to state review as defined by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(C)? Second Question: Does Montgomery v. Louisiana’s application of the Supremacy , Clause bind Trevino v. Thaler retroactively to state review as defined by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)\(1\(C)? Third Question: Does Montgomery v. Louisiana’s application of the Supremacy Clause along with Trevino v. Thaler’s procedural ruling announce a new retroactive right to post-conviction discovery procedures as defined by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(B)&(C)? Fourth Question: Does a violation of Brady v. Maryland in the absence of state postconviction discovery procedures constitute an “impediment” as defined by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(B)? Fifth Question: Can the discovery procedures of Rule 6 of the Rules Governing 2254 Cases be invoked to remove an impediment as defined by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(B) when the state courts allow no post-conviction discovery procedures to vindicate a Brady violation? Sixth Question: Does Montgomery v. Louisiana’s application of the Supremacy Clause bind a retroactive application of Crawford v. Washington under 28 U.S.C. § _ 2244(d)\1)(B&(C) to allow impeachment of a co-defendant’s statements relative to withheld Brady material? Seventh Question: Does the equitable tolling/actual innocence gateway defined in McQuiggin v. Perkins apply to a lesser homicide offense when unjustly convicted of a greater homicide offense? -i .