Did the federal district court commit clear error when it deemed the Reed's properly presented 28 USC section 2254 compulsory process violation claim to be an unrecognizable state-law challenge?

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED Did she Federal disrick court commit.cleac error whea it deemed Me Reeds propecly presented.28.USC section 2254 compulsoay process violation claim co oe. aniacogaizable state-law challenge Simply. because the state teviewing couck. abandoned Me Reed's Sederal compulsory process claim and held that a denial of a matecial witness only amounted to a stare law eccor ? . 2. Whar isahe coroeek Cehabilitative standacd of review to be applied when,.as in Me..Reed’s case, the stare. reviewing cours. finds that a.denied. witness was relevant so Ane ceedibiliry of tne complaining witness (hee daudhter S. and law enforcement; that 5. had, _ admittedly, lied about Key aspects of hee version of events; that S. Was impeached as having told Detective Montenegro that the police changed hee story; and that the record supports the possibility that the mother could give material testimony . regarding police manipulation of S’s testimony, but, Cather than Ceverse under ValenzuelaBernal, chooses +0 conditionally feverse aad feaquire Me. Reed +o Pfove, to the liking of the of Fending rial judge, thar the motner would have given material testimony, ro be Ceviewed under the stake Watson srandacd ? 3. Did the Federal disrrick courk Commis clear ecror. when it Pracedurally bared Me. Reedfcom.challea ging tial couct’s Failuce +o hear.his . motion xo replace appointed counsel, based upon a state rule that Was Not Shown +o be consistently and tegulacly applied ? 4. Tf a xcia\ cours has refused to hear Me. Reed’s motion +o 0eplace appointed counsel, ak a time when Me. Aeed wishes to objock +0. Unauthorized Sentencing and Motion For New trial, . what AS HN e_coceeck cemedy when Me. Reed has been diligent in his atkemors +o develop tne Cecord? 1