Whether, during review of the Petitioner's habeas corpus application in the United States District Court, the Petitioner was entitled to de novo review of his Ineffective Assistance of Counsel claims

ESTIONS pRESEIgD | -Whelhea, dusing aeview ofthe Scitionen’.psion application fonasusit of hebsasconpus inthe | Uvided States Distsich Cou ab, the Otitis ve.wns entiWed tn de.nove-Resiewouhis Ineffective Assistance | cams 180 hina sesh ch psa aed qt oa cya | -5.Distaich Courh abused its discection aud drwicd.s Gaia appellate heasing thal vialabed the — | Peltionead sighlte due process of Jawanden she Mth Amendment ofthe United States Constitution — | whewhe.couat applied th AEDPA.staudaed of arvicwtoassess.and drteamise dhe Pelifioncr’s lac) | Inims-although Stals appellate counts foiled oadjudicols on dhe ments of the Plionen&c1aOclaims? | . | — the Petitionseauswzes yes, : | 9.Whether a posh conviction statement made by trial counsel canbe used.as.an.exceptio , , pneu onda... 83, ence pestcne dads hee | d uring shake appellate proceeding $nial counsel staded that bs.wou | Ink felony wansontJaimpench.a shale the Pelion a Sale tale _ Ic heath cee se lap eS apn hrs al dtp : | Hlaw.usderthe 14th Bmendmend.of the United States Constitution, where the proseculion Knowingly) _ | and in bad faith suppressed a Felony out of state waneautat-teial aud the stats and below fedseal | | |ereiconbcpll il col shrinks | prostate Bandai and, hchosdhe ious e tied to guilable Alling the stabuleof limibabions.on this lain _ | . he Petitienen answises no tothe fast pant ofthe question, ard hr | answinsyes tothe second partof thr qurstiest,and yes to the a f nel pasbat the queskion, district judge shall be requiaed undes the Fintality of determination _ 2 talute 08.U.S.C.$.aa4y (a) to entealaina second.os successive application fora waitef habeas corpus to inquire indo the deletion ofa parson pursuanttoa judgment ofa courtof the | United sleles shape aas-thal the. CIsgelthy) of such detention Chas nob) been determined bya | judge.on.coucl.of the United States ona psion application for.aweit of habsas.conpus, wheats ___| | applicant cauestablish that equitable considerations relating te. prion | nud upan the count, on She. counts abuse of discadlion exiehs towaenant Appellate arulewionasecond or successiur application ;.and, whether itdenizsana pplicauts Right todut process of law in violation | -dhe uth Amendment of the United States Constitution when a ciacuitordishaich judgc.refustto—_| _ xencise junisdiction under $9944 (a) after the leqaltly of such drterdion hosaal beew detamintd _ |ecthcpsar sppeton fora nth babs canpur? . is issue base} brew aldeess by She Supreme Couthet the tnibl Shes, : | he Pelibiower answers yas, , | whether fromthe accepted aud usual course of judicial proceedings ___ | nek dented Snie appsHlate eevizw.and violated the Pclttioness.aightte dus processoflanuweethe —_ th Amended Sins cnaonuhan Shen, outa ppl eed he | Pelitionn’s application Sn.a Cenlifienls of Appralability Ccon).afher tbs court failed ts conduc envi |. thei Sh de Bie bl pugs nl ab dial showing of the : denial of a.constibonal aight which the Pitionee wns arguieed bs shen ander 285.645 39531098)? —— | a .-whether_taial counsel denied the accused / Pelitiontn effective assistance of counsel dunia _ : | sin|and entinely failed bo subject tht prosteulnas cass testing, when , | ounsel friled to patsea drfewse evidence of the Pelitionens Actual Innocence aqains} the | prosecutans fraudulent caiminal.charge.of Ftlony buaglary;.and, whether trial counsels failure to | pasent evidence of th: Cctilionen’ aclual iunecenict_violaled the Qelibionen’. aight ta n fain dial : fthentic | nt Peli Mower answers yrs .LIST_OF PARTIES. AND RELATED CASES , 1ST.Of PaRTies _ Devito opener nen eg | RELATED CASES ; , : | ommonvicalth of No. 166.MDA.2017. Judamententeacs : | December 15,3017. The State crcabed exception te Bandy v. Maryland, 313.U.5.83. Sct