1. WHETHER REASONABLE JURIST COULD FIND IT DEBATABLE THAT THERES AN EXTAORDINARY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A MISDEMEANOR VS. A FELONY, AND WHETHER A PERSON WHO SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUBJECTED TO A MISDEMEANOR THAT CARRIES NO PRISON TIME VS. A FELONY THAT CARRIES 20 YEARS IN PRISON IS AN EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCE THAT CONCERNS RULE 60 (b) (6)?

2. DOES AN EXCEPTION TO BECK V. ALABAMA (1980) AND KEEBLE V. U.S (1973), EXTEND TO A NON CAPITAL OFFENSE AS A MATTER OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE 5th AND 14th AMENDMENTS, WHERE THE STATE 'S EVIDENCE SUPPORTS A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE, WHICH IS A MISDEMEANOR VS. A FELONY?

3. DOES THE RULING IN MURRAY V. CARRIER AND DRETKE V. HALEY EXTEND TO A FAILURE TO INSTRUCT ON MISDEMEANOR STATUTE, WHERE JURY COULD HAVE DETERMINED ACTUAL INNOCENCE OF FELONY STATUTE HAD NOT BEEN FOR TRIAL COUNSEL 'S FAILURE TO REQUEST IT, AND DIRECT APPEALS COUNSEL 'S FAILURE TO RAISE IT?

4. WHETHER DIRECT APPEAL COUNSEL 'S FAILURE TO RAISE METORIOUS CLAIM SHALL AUTOMATICALLY BE CONSIDERED A PROCEDURAL DEFAULT FOR PURPOSES OF FEDERAL REVIEW UNDER COLEMANN V. THOMPSON (1991), WHERE CLAIM HAS NEVER BEEN HEARD ON THE MERITS IN ANY COURT AND JURY COULD HAVE DETERMINED ACTUAL INNOCENCE OF SUBSTANTIVE STATUTE?

Whether a misdemeanor vs. felony distinction is an extraordinary circumstance under Rule 60(b)(6)