Whether the petitioner was denied the same review of the game law that was applied to a similarly situated defendant by the state district court of appeals, and is therefore entitled to federal habeas relief?

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED NIP Rretromet’s “Oareerrou’ to Maexsteate Tuose'’s Report suo ReconmenaATzou, CLEARLY dEMousT&ATED THs He was Qewxeo THe Game] Rewe xt of THe Gamé] Law THAT was REAERCO To A 4rmreAR~ SctuaTeo OehenoanT BY THe [amd] Stare OrstRrer Court of APPEALS; (See2 Appears I ar id ~le), THens ths THer @eTersoueR Mane a stowed of A*MancfesT tHeRchore EnTeTLED 3 Fenerat Hagens Reczef ? : ) Lkewese, ZF Petetcouers "ORTectrou” Has SenomsTRaTen TH 1) THere was ERRor , (2) TH ERROR ‘ES Puacuds) THer cr APhecten Hrs Suastimear Qcede 1 Ano (4) Ter xT Affecreo THe Fuuosneutat Farauesa of THe Rocecozut, (See: Nepeworx Linx 12-16)0 Has THe PeTETzoncR DEMoUSTRATEO A "Mauclest Dadustece?..Auo xs THetehoRe EvTeteo To Haseas Coteus Acczef 7 SZ) Ie Aerereoweks “Oatectaou" ths cleakuy oemousrietco ERROR) THAT was commrmeo by Hes [rare APPo nuts] Artomwey Ourcue Hes Drrecr Aptetcate Reveew, (See: ApPeworx Z Ar 9~/1), Has tHe PeTeTeoveR Beev Dewren A Far PRocess aud THe OveoRruuxtY Te Comey wrth THe Staves PRoceoukes Avo OBTArW Av AOTuOrcATLoN ou THe MERZTS of Hee Clarm’ Lckewrse, hay THe PeteTxowen use THe Agove-Saro ERRoR(S) To E-sTapursd “Cause” fot Hrs PRoceoura. Defaucr zy factewe 7 Ravse YuelFectzve Assratauce of Terat Couwse. ClLarm? UTE Peretzouer'’s “Oazecrzou” THorousdly cemousteeren THar (1) MauxFesr InJustzee Do Exrsr xa Hes case,(2) Thar a ConsteTiuTrouae Veotarrou Has pecurreo uo (3) Tr x7 Resuctéo xu THe couvactzom of PeTETroueR who rs AcTuacey Lumocesit, (See: APE DEX ZL ar 10-16), 23 THe PeTeTeoueR EvTETLEO Te OBTaxw Fenetac Hageas Revzew of Us Proceouraccy Defaucteo Cracm,[wrTHouT] x sdowzwaé of “Cause” of “Preduoxce’? S)Z€ Cctatrovets "DkTecTron” Crearey OemousTRaTEo THat (4) He dee Been Pukeuxwe Hes | Reade OrcxQeWTiy, duo (2) THAT Some EXTROOROTUARY CZREUMSTANCE S7e0d ZA Hes WAV Aue Revesteo Trmecy Freer: Puksuat To Cawrence ve FloRrcoa, 549 Us. 329,336 (2007) :awo Pace v. Oreuacretne, 544 U.S. 408, V8 (2005), (See: APPEwore Lar 7-8), THeu Has THe PeTeTrourR Macc A SHowene of Ewtetiement 70 "E@ucTise Totczna," Auo rs THegeay ExtcTveo To Feockac Haaeas Revrew? G) Were THe State Courr of Apveats Correct xu Pee Cutcan Affrantu& THe Deuxac of A TReat Court THaT (1) D2o mor ATTacd Porrzous OF THe Recoke To ReFuTe PeTeTroucké CLATN Ano (2) THer RefFuseo w susnxt in Auswer Bece€ te kefure THe MeRcTs of PeTrTEouen’s LIurtrac Arref, eve ATER BELA OROEREO To Do so Erwxce? Gee: Aveeuoxx F ). T) Were tHe State Coukt of AfPear cotRect mm vem a*‘Marzeu for ReHeatcue Eu Baue! WHete z(t) A Mauxéest Luaustece was ALcedeo, Avo (2) Wieke THe ocersrou Reauesteo To be Heako Ew Bae ExPRessty ano Orkeetty, Cowferers wrrd nile Prevrous Oeersrom(s) of order Seurok suo Cuecf Tuoees of Tile [Sane] State Destézer Coukr of Appears? (Scez Aprenorn @).