Whether the district court applied an incorrect standard of review

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW QUESTION ONE: WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURT APPLIED AN INCORRECT STANDARD OF REVIEW TO PETITIONER'S APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY (“COA”) ON PETITIONER'S GROUND FOUR CLAIM UNDER FED. R. CIV. PRO. 60(B)(6) IS CONTRARY TO TENNARD V. DRETKE, 542 US 274 (2004); SLACK V. MCDANIEL; AND MILLER-EL V. COCKRELL, 537 U.S. 322 (2003); RAGEAND V. UNITED STATES, 756 F.3D 597 (8TH CIR. 2014); EVANS V. LUEBBERS, 371 F.3D 438 (2004); FOWLKES, 326 F.3D 542 (4TH CIR. 2003); LAMBRIGHT V, STEWART, 220 F.3D 1022 (9TH CIR. 2000) IN LIGHT OF THE NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE OF PETITIONER’S ACTUAL INNOCENCE CLEARLY DEMONSTRATED IN EXHIBITS 1, 2 AND 3? QUESTION TWO: WHETHER CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY SHOULD ISSUE ON PETITIONER'S CLAIM OF INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF BOTH TRIAL AND APPELLATE COUNSEL UNDER STRICKLAND V. WASHINGTON RAISED IN PETITIONER'S REPLY BRIEF, RULE 59(A)-(E) AND UNDER FED. R. CIV. PRO. 60(B)(6) MOTION BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT IN LIGHT OF UNITED STATES V. HARFST, 168 F.3D 398 (10T CIR. 1999) IN LIGHT OF THE NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE OF PETITIONER’S ACTUAL INNOCENCE CLEARLY DEMONSTRATED IN EXHIBITS 1, 2 AND 3? QUESTION THREE: WHETHER PETITIONER HAS DEMONSTRATED CAUSE AND PREJUDICE UNDER FED. R. CIV. PRO. 60(B)(6) IN LIGHT OF MARTINEZ V. RYAN, 566 US 1 (2012); TREVINO V._THALER, 569 US __ (2013); MASSARO V. UNITED STATES, 538 US 500 (2003); STATE V. ZERNECHEL, 304 N.W.2D 365 (MINN. 1981); AND REAGAN V. NORRIS, 279 F.3D 651 (8TH CIR. 2002) BASED ON THE NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE OF PETITIONER’S ACTUAL INNOCENCE CLEARLY DEMONSTRATED IN EXHIBITS 1, 2 AND 3? QUESTION FOUR: WHETHER UNDER FED. R. CIV. PRO. 60(B)(6), A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY SHOULD ISSUE ON THIS CASE UNDER THE ACTUAL INNOCENCE EXCEPTION, MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE EXCEPTION, ENDS OF JUSTICE EXCEPTION, MANIFEST INJUSTICE EXCEPTION, OR COLLATERAL CONSEQUENCE DOCTRINE EVIDENCE IN UDOH _V. BARR, USCA8 NO. 20-2389 IN LIGHT OF THE NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE OF PETITIONER’S ACTUAL INNOCENCE CLEARLY DEMONSTRATED IN _ EXHIBITS 1, 2 AND 3, AND PETITIONER’S LACK OF ACCESS TO THE PRISON LAW LIBRARY RESULTING FROM THE SPREAD OF COVID-19 CORONAVIRUS PANDEMIC IN MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS? PETITION by Udoh — Page ii