Whether district court required to give deference to state appellate court's finding of historical facts

QUESTIONS PRESENTED LoL WHETHER UNDER §2254(e)(1) DISTRICT COURT REQUIRED TO GIVE DEFERENCE TO STATE APPELLATE COURT'S FINDING OF HISTORICAL FACTS AND UPON FINDING THAT PETITIONER AND/OR OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED STATE PRISONERS HAVE REBUTTED THE EXPLICIT STATE APPELLATE COURT RULING OF WAIVER/PROCEDURAL DEFAULT BY EVIDENCE THAT IS CLEAR AND CONVINCING THAT STATE COURT'S PRESUMPTION OF CORRECTNESS IS REFUTED SUCH THAT STATE PRISONERS ARE ENTITLED TO DE NOVO REVIEW OF CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIMS? II. WHETHER THE FACTS SET FORTH PREVIOUSLY AND HEREIN ESTABLISH THAT JURISTS OF REASON COULD DISAGREE WITH THE DISTRICT COURTS §2254(d) AEDPA APPLICATION AS OPPOSED TO STATE APPELLATE COURTS WAIVED/PROCEDURALLY DEFAULTED DETERMINATION SUCH THAT THE THIRD CIRCUIT SHOULD HAVE ISSUED A COA TO REVIEW THE DISTRICT COURT'S DENIAL OF HABEAS RELIEF? : : : IIt. WHETHER STATE APPELLATE COURT RELIANCE ON: FED.R.CRIM.P. RULE 30 DURING STATE APPELLATE MATTERS (RELATIVE TO PA.R.CRIM.P., RULE 647 BEING THE PENNSYLVANIA COUNTERPART TO FED.R.CRIM.P. RULE, 30) AND JONES V. U.S. (1999) prevents the PA STATE COURTS FROM AN INDEPENDENT STATE-LAW DEFENSE UNDER AKE V. OKLAHOMA SUCH THAT THE THIRD CIRCUIT SHOULD HAVE ISSUED A COA TO REVIEW THE DISTRICT COURT'S DENIAL OF HABEAS RELIEF? Iv. WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURT'S INTERPRETATION OF §2254(d)(2) RELATIVE TO CLAIM UNDER STRICKLAND V. WASHINGTON (1984), IS INAPPROPRIATELY RESTRICTIVE SUCH _ THAT IT CONFLICTS WITH OTHER CIRCUIT COURTS? Vv. WHETHER THIRD CIRCUIT HOLDING OF DENIAL OF A COA FOR "SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME REASONS PROVIDED BY THE DISTRICT COURT" CONFLICTS WITH THE RULING OF OTHER CIRCUIT COURTS AND U.S. SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT AS SUCH A RULING IS BEYOND THE THRESHOLD INQUIRY REQUIRED FOR ISSUANCE OF A COA? a [i]