Whether the Habeas Court proceeding and adjudication of the claim regarding a Batson issue did not result in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of misapplied facts in the state court, as clearly established Federal laws, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States, or was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the Federal Habeas Court proceeding, thus the District Court abuse of discretion on its part when it denied Petitioner Batson claim that was clearly demonstrated in the state court proceeding?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED: : Whether the Habeas Court proceeding and asjudication of the claim regarding a Batson issue did not result in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of misapplied facts in the state court, as clearly established Federal "laws, as determine by the Supreme Court of the United States, or ' was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the Federal Habeas Court proceeding, thus the District Court abuse of discretion on its part when it denied Petitioner Batson claim that was clearly demonstrated in the state court proceeding? : . Whether Respondent to the Federal Habeas Court mischaracterzies Allen's positions in state court, and misrepresents . the factual record with the most salient facts regarding a Batson : violation, thus failed to properly engage in demonstrating the Supreme Court requirements regarding a Batson claim to the Federal . Habeas Court in its Answer and Memorandum?