Whether the Third Circuit Court of Appeals erred in failing to issue a Certificate of Appealability or grant reargument in the instant matter

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Certiorari is sought re the erroneous denial of a C.0.A. or Reargument in the 3rd Cir. Ct. of Appeals, perhaps most notable among the questions presented, is if this court's ruling in Cullen y. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170, 181 (2011), bars a rehearing re Brady material that was. unavailable in the St. Ct. where the ADA Pled the 5th, and access to the ADA file was denied, because Jones v. Bagley, 696 F.3d 475 (6th Cir. 2012) ftnote 4, ref. at 486, states Brady is a , exception:to "Pinholster," but other huge questions of significant public importance that are ~ as of yet unprecedented have also been presented: so 1) REGARDING WHEN A C.0.A. IS TO BE ISSUED, HAVE THIS COURT'S HOLDINGS IN Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880 (1983), AND Miller v. Cocker]1, 537 U.S. 332 (2003) BEEN OVERRULED, OR HAS THE U.S. COURT OF APEALS FOR THE 3rd Cir. ERRED IN FAILING TO ISSUE A C.0.A. OR REARGUMENT IN THE INSTANT . MATTER? 2) ARE PCRA's FILED BY THE DECLARANT AND COUNSEL, AND TESTIMONY FROM HIS OOUNSEL REVEALING A BRADY VIOLATION AND TRIAL PERJURY, A HEARSAY EXCEPTION WHEN THE DECLARANT IS UNAVAILABLE? WHEN THE ADA PLEADS THE 5th IN RESPONSE TO THE AQGUSATION OF A BRADY VIOLATION, DOES IT : HAVE ANY EVIDENTIARY VALUE-AS AN ADMISSION IN THE CIVIL SETTING OF A PCRA HEARING? “WHEN THE PCRA DECLARANT SUBSEQUENTLY BECOMES AVAILABLE AND ISSUES AFFIDAVITS ADMITTING THE BRADY VIOLATION, IS A REHEARING BARRED BY "PINHOLSTER," 563 U.S. 170 (2011), WHEN AOCESS TO THE ADA FILE WAS DENIED AT FIRST HEARING, AND “BAGLEY,"' 696 F.3d 475 (6th Cir. 2012) footnote 4, ref. at 486, STATES BRADY MATERIAL IS A BRIGHT LINE EXCEPTION TO "PINHOLSTER." 3) WHERE THE JURY RETURNED FROM DELIBERATIONS REQUESTING THE SELF-DEFENSE INSTRUCTION BE REPEATED AND WERE: ERRONEOUSLY INSTRUCTED DEFENBANT HAD A DUTY TO RETREAT FROM HIS OWN "DWELLING," : THE DEFENDANT's DUE PROCESS RIGHTS VIOLATED WHERE THE DIST. DISPOSED OF THE CLAIM BY ADOPTING A MISREPRESENTATION BY THE ST. CT. THE DUTY WAS NOT EXCUSED FROM A "DWELLING" UNDER THE STATUTE AT THE TIME OF TRIAL, WHEN IT WAS (Sth and 14th Amendment U.S. €onst. Due process), : AND DOES A PRISONER HAVE A RIGHT TO STAND HIS GROUND IN HIS ASSIGNED CELL? : 4) WHERE THE JURY RETURNED FROM DELIBERATIONS REQUESTING THE SELF-DEFENSE INSTRUCTION BE REPEATED AND WERE ERRONBOUSLY INSTRUCTED IF THE DEFENDANT ACCIDENTALLY INJURED THE VICTIM IN SELE-DEFENSE, HE "COMMETTED THE CRIME" AND THE JURY "NEED NOT CONSIDER JUSTIFICATION," DID THIS MISINSTRUCTION INFECT THE ENTIRE TRIAL WITH UNFATRNESS WHERE UNDER STATE LAW, SELE-DEFENSE AND ACCIDENTAL INJURY ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE UNDER Childs, 142 A.3d 823 (2016), AND WAS IT OONSITIUTIONAL FOR THE DISTRICT TO CLAIM THIS MAY HAVE BEEN A "SCRIVNER ERROR"? 5) IS PROCEDURALLY DEFAULTING A DEFENDANT FOR FAILURE TO RELITIGATE A FULLY EXHAUSTED DIRECT APPEAL CLAIM ON PCRA UNDER THE ALTERNATIVE LEGAL THEORY OR ALLEGATION ON AN “EX-PosTFACTO" VIOLATION CONSTTIVDTGNAL-WHEN THR STATE BCRA ACT EXPRESSLY FORBIDS SATD RELITICATION UNDER 42 Pa. C.S. 8 9544(a)(2), see Collins, 888 A.2d 564 (2005) Headnote 3, and 586 Pa. 56, AND, IS THE DIST. PERMITTED TO LEAVE CLAIMS AND DISPUTED MATTER UNADDRESSED? . : OO pe