Whether a lower federal court violates due process when it ignores a petitioner's appropriately cited case law in support that appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise issues that were clearly stronger than those presented on direct appeal to overcome procedural default?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Question One: Whether a lower federal court violates due process when it ignores a petitioner’s appropriately cited case law in support that appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise issues that were clearly stronger than those presented on direct appeal to overcome procedural default? Page 10. Question Two: Whether a prosecutor’s conduct and utterances are always reviewable, at the very least, when a court proceeds on the assumption that perjury was committed which precludes the development of true facts and results in the admission of false ones, to overcome procedural default? Page 12. Question Three: Whether joinder, for the purpose of establishing identity through modus operandi, rises to a level of a constitutional violation resulting in prejudice so great as to deny a defendant his right to a fair trial when a prosecutor presents falsehoods about material evidence to support it? Page 14. Question Four: Whether law enforcements opinion testimony of guilt, where the officer has no familiarity with the accused, prejudicially lends credibility to the state’s case in violation of Evidence Rule 701 where the courts acknowledge “the high regard in which law enforcement officials are held.” Walker v. Morrow, 458 F. Appx. 475, 492 (6th Cir. 2012). Page 16. Question Five: Whether victim and community impact testimony is prejudicial where the only fact issue is identity, and to settle the conflict in how much victim-impact testimony is enough to violate a defendant’s due process rights rendering the trial fundamentally unfair? Page 18. Question Six: Whether a lower court violates due process and abuses its discretion when it unreasonably “makes” a petitioner fit the factual findings for the purpose of identity despite no witness described or identified the petitioner as the suspect after providing in-detail facial features and complexion differences at the State court proceeding, and even after petitioner has disputed the factual findings by clear and convincing evidence? Page 21. Question Seven: Whether the Court will settle the conflict between the circuit courts concerning what is or is not acommon/generic characteristic carried out in robberies for the purpose of identity in 404(b)? Page 26. Question Eight: Whether barring review of issues that have some merit in state post-conviction proceeding where no counsel was assigned, is in conflict with Sixth Circuit/Supreme Court precedence? Page 29. | Question Nine: Whether the Court in Schlup only meant newly discovered evidence that was not | available at the time of trial, or broadly encompasses all evidence that was not presented to the factfinder during trial, as sufficient for the gateway claim of actual innocence? I thus ask the Court to settle this conflict within the Sixth Circuit, and between other circuits. Page 37.