Did the federal and state courts abuse their discretion in denying petitioner's motion for a new trial and Ginther hearing?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED I . DID THE FEDERAL AND STATE COURT'S ABUSE THEIR DISCRETION WHEN THEY MISAPPLIED THE LAW IN DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL AND GINTHER HEARING WHEN THE STATE COURT RIISET HIS JUDGMENT, RESETTING THE HABEAS CORPUS CLOCK PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A)? un ; DID THE FEDERAL AND STATE COURT'S ABUSE THEIR DISCRETION WHEN IMPROPERLY ASSESSING A VIOLATION OF BRADY WHER|| THE PROSECUTION WITHHELD THE CRIMINAL HISTORY AND DEAL FOR TESTIMONY OF THE STATES WITNESS, IN VIOLATION OF MCR 6.201(A)(5), (B)(5), AND WHERE THE FEDERAL COURT TOOK ON THE ROLE OF THE ve : III DID THE FEDERAL AND STATE COURT'S ERR WHEN FAILING TO PROPERLY APPLY THE LAW AND FACTS TO PETITIONER'S ACTUAL INNOCENCE CLAIM. DENYING PETITIONER HIS RIGHTS TO EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS CONST. AM. XIV? IV , DID THE FEDERAL AND STATE COURT'S ERR WHEN FAILING TO ADDRESS A FRAUD UPON THE COURT THAT IS SUBSTANTIATED WITH FACTS NEEDING EXPANSION OF THE RECORD? V HAS IT BEEN OVERLOOKED THAT PETITIONER'S FEDERAL AND STATE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW WERE VIOLATED WHEN A LEGAL ACT UNDER MICHIGAN LAW WAS USED AS A LISTED OFFENSE DURING TRIAL, AFFECTING THE ENTIRE PROCEEDING? Se, : VI DID THE FEDERAL AND STATE COURT'S ERR WHEN FAILING TO ORDER AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING TO SUBSTANTIATE PETITIONER'S CLAIMS OF CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATION(S). (1) PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT; (2) INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF TRIAL AND APPELLATE COUNSEL(S). WHERE HE HAS PROVIDED A PRIMA FACIE SHOWING OF THOSE DEPRIVATIONS? (i)