Whether state trial court's 'external interference' constitutes rare and extraordinary circumstance sufficient to excuse statute of limitations time-bar

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED Compelling reasons exist for the exercise of the court's discretionary jurisdiction. The Fifth Circuit's [COA DENIAL] "conflicts" with prior Supreme Court and federal law precedent. The national importance of having the Supreme Court decide and consider these important questions when state habeas applicants are being | time-barred for procedural non-compliance error defects, and:have not been accorded the fair notice or opportunity to respond because of misleading order instructions issued by court officials who deliberately fail to send "notice of defect" with warning that failure to comply could result in dismissal. 1. Whether state trial court's "external interference" constitutes rare and extraordinary circumstance sufficient to excuse statute of limitations time~bar, when they failed to accord fair notice and opportunity to respond, correct and resubmit? 2. Whether the Fifth Circuit abused its discretion in denying COA without ordering the development of the factual record to examine petitioner's allegation that state imposed imediment was the legal cause of time-bar? 3. Whether the Fifth Circuit's decision to deny COA conflicts with prior Supreme Court decisions "rejecting" Fifth Circuit's [COA TEST]? The Supreme Court should examine the "LEGAL CAUSE" behind the state trial court's ministerial action "induced" by court officials to avoid any possibility of an acquittal on appeal, and to derail habeas relief with timeliness obstacle resulting in time-bar, For these reasons, pro se petitionerit' fiailuresto raise his habeas claims earlier solely on the basis of state imposed impediment is cause outside of his control. McClesky v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467,495 (1991) i