Whether indigent petitioner's 'gateway factual innocence' showing while being 'constructively' denied appointment of counsel on first and all other appeals denying statutory right to appeal excuses state court exhaustion requirement

QUESTIONS) PRESENTED . \. Whether indigent petitioner's "G ATE WAY FACTURL INNOCENCE Showing while being, Constructively’ DENTED‘appeintinent of counsel on FIRSTond ALLother appeals | DENYING shehitory RIGHT to appeal excuses Stale. court exhaustion Nequicament, ondat FEDERAL District om’ SECOND CERCULY courts ERRORED AW’DENYING 0. [C.0.A,) to" REOPEN’ With CASE “Consolidation? QTF Nor whether petitioners extaordinar ye XISTING Cuycumstances under. 9B US.C$ 2954 COXIKBXI) vender ATEMPTED State EXHAUSTION ONEXCEPTION 22° 3.Whethar Ded Court ERRDRED in DENYING petitioners request Tor. an a 1 impor Hel UNBIASED Todge. Change.and (Aut RECUSAL Bical REFUSAL ZT? ~ He Whether Aulextaordinar y EXISTING civcumstances RENDER pehioner on | Appoiritinert at appropricte counsel with RELEASE Pending FENALETY" 22? 5, Whether SECOND CERCULY Court ERRORED'on any RULINGS in DESHeNOK a “TIMELY binding OF LAW’ agreements 32? ! -b, Whether prior SECOND CIRCUET panel members dial LMPROPRLETY | , Constitute o VIOLATION 3% RENDER ANY Or ALL . “SUbsequent Districl on’CERCULT COURTS decisions “VOID ??? T. Whether"EMERGEN CY"ABUS.C&A10b supervisory CORRECTIVE ACTION" . . Should be“ ENFORCED‘on' MERLTS in THES CASE'OF MISCARRAGE a JUSTICE. anderSUPREME” Court exerstze POWER. °?? 7.