Whether the Court's adjudication of this case ensue from a decision that was to, or involve an unreasonable application of, clearly established law as recognized by the United States Supreme Court under Schulp v. Delo?

Issues presented: ; oe 2 memes eer 1. Whether the Court's adjudication of this case ensue from a decision that was to, or involve an unreasonable application of, clearly established law as recognized by the United States Supreme Court under Schulp v. Delo? 2. Whether the Court has deviated materially from established jurisprudence by allowing prosecutor's to withhold evidence from the petitioner that was favorable to the proving of his innocence and further use it against him in order to ensue a conviction? 3. Whether the Constitutional requirement of due process is satisfied where a conviction is obtained on the sole basis of a witness' testimony that was admitted by this witness to be ; presented under false pretense? 4. Whether the Appellate Court acutely determine that the circumstantial evidence used against this petitioner was sufficiently reasonable in its application? 5. Whether the Court's affirming of petitioner's conviction violate his due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and the Eight Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment? ~ STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION: Jurisdiction is vested in-thisHonorable Court by virtue of Article V, Section 10 of the Louisiana Constitution of 1974, and by Rule X and Rule XIII of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States. NOTICE OF PRO-SE FILING: Petitioner request that this Honorable Court view these Claims in accordance with the rulings of Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 92 S. Ct. 594, 30 L. Ed. 2d. 652 (1972); State v. Moak, 387 So.2d. 1108 (La. 1980)(Pro-se petitioner not held to same stringent standards as a trained lawyer); State v. Egana, 771 So.2d. 638 (La. 2000)(less stringent standards than formal pleadings filed by lawyers). Petitioner is a layman of the law and untrained in the ways of filings and proceedings of formal pleadings in this Court. MAY IT PLEASE THIS HONORABLE COURT: NOW INTO COURT COMES, Petitioner,O. B. Davis, in pro-se' capacity, who respectfully applies to this Honorable Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari to review the judgement of the United States Court of Appeal, for the Fifth Circuit, for the denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to U.S.C. § 2254 @ USDC No. 2:19-CV-1107; in accordance with this Court's Rule X and Rule XIII, petitioner presents the following reasons in support of the granting of this writ; STATEMENT OF FACTS: 1. On June 17, 2013 before the Thirty-First Judicial District Court, with his attorney of record, W. J. Riley, III. Through counsel, Mr. Davis withdrew his previous plea of not guilty and entered a pea of nolo contendre or “No Contest” to the lesser included offense of Forceable Rape, La. RS. 14:42.1. The state at this time was represented by Bennett R. Lapoint, Asst. District Attorney. Mr. Lanpoint stated the factual basis for the record and offered for filing into evidence as state's exhibit S-1, the CAC interview with the drawings: as State's exhibit S-2, in globo, the medical reports; and State's exhibit S-3, the written statement by witness Krystal Mallet. The court ordered the state's exhibits filed into the record and placed under seal. The victim in this matter whose initials are T. P., a minor, wrote an impact statement in which Mr. Lanpoint read into open court. Upon completion, he offered the impact statement for filing into record. The court ordered the offering filed into record. Whereupon, the court sentenced Mr. Davis to serve twenty (20) years at hard labor with the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections. (DOC, 7, p. 1.) The court then ordered that the first two (2) years of the sentence be served without the benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence and that the sentence run concurrently to Petitioner's probation revocation in CR — 1804 — 07. The court also gave Petitioner credit for all time previously served. Prior to accepting the nolo contendere plea, the court Boykinized the defendant. Through