Whether a state-created delay of uninformed notification that a second amended (corrected sentencing) judgment of conviction had become final and ripe for a second appeal constitutes an extraordinary circumstances warranting equitable tolling of the AEDPA one year habeas corpus time period amounting to a miscarriage of justice

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED | L. WHETHER A etaTe CREATED DELAY OF UNINFORMED NOTLEICATION THAT A SECOND AMENDED (CORRECTED SENTENCING) JUDG | MENT OF CONVICTION HAD BECOME FINAL AND RIPE FOR ASECOND | APPEAL CONSTITUTES AN EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES WARRANTING EQUITABLE TOLLING OF THE AEDPA ONE YEAR ABEAS CORPUS TIME PERIOD AMOUNTING TD A MISCARRIAGE OF TUSUE, WHERE SIMILAR SLTUATED DEFENDANT'S WAVE. RECEIVED THE BENEFITS OF THE SANE. TOLLING BEING DENIED TRE PETCHNER ° 2. WHETHER A MISPERCETVED CLAIM OF A DUE PROCESS vI0LATION AND A DENIAL OF ACCESS OF THE COURT, WHERE THE PETLTIDNER WAS NEVER NOTLFLED OF AN OPPORTUNETY BY THE STATE COURTS OF A SECOND DIRECT APPEAL AFTER A SUCCEeeFU FIRST APPEAL NETTED A CORRECTED AMENDED TUXCHENT AND ; SENTENCE, WHICH HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY THE FEDERAL COURTS AS ARGUING AN APPEAL OF A POSTOONNIICTION 3.850 MOTION RATHER THAN THE. TRUE CLAIM, DESERVES CORRECTION UNDER HALBERT V, MICHIGAN, 5Y5 U.S, 605 (2005) ° _— | — | mo ! . | i