1) Whether the District court erred by dismissing
Potitoners $2254 as Untimely (dee Wo. Lad 2) Which conklicts
with decisions of other appellate courts of the same issue
bot also US law under 28 USC $2244 (A)(1)(e) The
dote_oo which the impediment to Ghag an applicaton

— Ceated hy State CAC hin in Violation of the coash by hon of .
law of the Unbecl Sh, tes 15 remove if tho apphccant wos
mevented from Filing by such state acton — The impediment
pena tho complete oss [olasteuc tion 00 (Oficals of Co so
Mb tones local matenul aad promrly ducing Ws teasber to
three seperate prisens with 24 howl peciod { Dense see ctqsccnsat)

2) Whether the Distact couct and Alopeals Coult ected 10
it's understanding of the Facts avid submissions presented

; by Neo se Dot tener and the yneascnable anlicaten ob

established case law which not oaly conklicts wrth ths :
court vt other coucts on the same issue — To whew the
complete loss [destruc hen of Pro Se Del toners legal naterral 1S
axtraccdinary as a matter of law dad 1s plawly preven ted
Com bsliag aay Pleacdinc Fuc_scom chime (Diecse see ctqse gat )

3) theth or the District court and Appeals court _orred
. hy Avot ganhay No se Petihener a COA, 14 Conklict
with decisions of olhor appellate courts on Hw same issue
to whore feascnuble yrist could debate whothor Pro Se
— pebrhen should have heen resolved ina clflecant manner,
of hat the iesuss presented were adequate bv dosowe
eAccracayemsat to proceed Further — Submissions presented
| by Dose Dbbuore were clabatable aad enough to
sal " we hat st ocalie i i faut .
0 ve Elon . ho oll ececloat

yy) Whether a Dew Se Do bihener IS cnhtlecl bo equitable
. tolling or at @ minimum, Focthor Cactval clovelop mont
with counsel before tho Dishact court whore the
Delheners Submesions —domenchrato that there aro
Ciccumstunces under which tolling IS worcanted.

Whether the lower court erred in its interpretation and application of the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause