Whether the Sixth Circuit erred when it applied a death penalty sentencing Strickland review, in a non death penalty case, raising an actual innocence gateway claim. And whether that manner of review violated the Suspension clause of the U.S.Constitution Article 1 § 9.

Whether the Sixth Circuit erred by finding sufficient evidence from the States summary citing the indictment, and its own false interpretation speculating on hearsay testimony, and whether that contradicts JACKSON V VIRGINIA. 443 U.S. 307 (1979).

AND whether the Sixth Circuit erred by finding sufficient evidence based on Hearsay testimony from two witnesses who the alleged victim indicated she never spoke to in her testimony and when the witness testimony is contradicted by the alleged victims statement to Hospital social worker denying the act necessary to charge the offence.

Whether the cumulative effect of multiple errors in the Sixth Circuit C.O.A. review denied petitioner his right to be heard, and whether it violated Article 1 to Redress, to due process § 9 of the U.S. Constitution, Suspending habeas corpus.

Whether the Sixth circuit erred by making it's own ruling from the State court decision, then determining jurists of reason would not disagree with the district court on that decision

Whether the Sixth Circuit properly applied procedural default from the State court's plain error review when the State court ignored one of the issues, and applied it to the wrong question regarding the second part.

Whether the Sixth Circuit erred in applying res judicata, from the State court's ruling that barred petitioner from being heard, ruling that res judicata barred him from presenting new evidence while simultaneously holding that he was barred because he didn't present new evidence.

Whether the Sixth Circuit erred in applying a death penalty sentencing review in a non-death penalty case