1. Was the Petitioner denied the right to a fair trial, due to hypothetical jury instruction, and suffered ineffective assistance of counsel, regarding reasonable doubt. Where the United States Court of Appeals entered a decision whidh conflicts with the decision of the United States District Courts. And has decided an important Federal question in a way that conflicts with another Federal District Courts decision. Which is cause for an exercise of this Courts supervisory power?

2. Does the application of Newly Discovered facts apply, here, where the Petitioner raised the claim within less thaU(60) days under the required PCRA Statute after the Petitioner became aware. Where the question is of Constitutional importance, and the language of the lower Courts require this Court to exercise it's supervisory power. And finally, would there be a disparity-without this Court addressing this important question of law?

3. Was Petitioner diligent in seeking relief once he became aware, that the jury instructions on \ treasonable doubt as given by Renee Cardwell Hughes were fatally flawed? And violated his Constitutional right to fair trial?

4. Was it Petitioners only opportunity to a de novo review from the District Court and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, related to ineffective assistance of counsel where Petitioner raised ineffective assistance of trial and PCRA counsel, under Martin v. Ryan, and where it was Petitioners first/only opportunity to seek relief from the Federal Court related to the flawed jury instructions on reasonable doubt?

Was the Petitioner denied the right to a fair trial, due to hypothetical-jury, jury-instruction, ineffective-assistance-of-counsel, reasonable-doubt