Whether new reliable evidence for the purpose of Schlup's actual innocence gateway must be newly discovered, previously unavailable evidence or related evidence that was available but not presented at trial calls for the exercise of the Supreme Court's supervisory power?

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED | 1 Dees +he Nisagqree mew+t between the Cieciuits on Wheather New Reliable Evinewes yor He purpose af Schlups actual ING BOG gateway wiust be Mealy Miscovered , Previously | nvaviable eviclente oe welead, evidence fhab Las | AViables but sot Presewted at trial call for the wertise of the Supreme Burl Suyperdisoey power 7o Seccemee | AW Seg amity Wry the Couddts of G@ppeals 2 | Z. Did the Court of mppeats forthe Fifra Gtecurt disreqeud Supreme Couad precede vl Wher it devied a Gerlificato af Appel aloslity rating the petrtrower had wor glocows a — Sulestow kal vislatieo of Wis Covetatioval Rights When w | stare trial judge Oarced the pottiewerdy trial Wim ap | Otenswey with a Stated GouSlict of jiorleres} who in foamed the Goust he could vot odeguately deforwsd the. defouderrt? 3. vidoe district yudge> ercepiens cevial af the cha ferrclensts LOnt of haloces Conpus avd Carhiicales af Apoectalalily | Sus pend the Sepeme Courle rbivgs WW Trevive vThaler, B3Sch IM, : Markves v Ryan , 132 Sct 1304 ord Puck v Davis, 137 S79 Where, 7 cle fend ant sheweel lus chains of mweffective A881 S1awts of | trial aud QGse date, Couwsef Whose. Siebcdustial and Were, yet Pee hoirref beonse yf said Eases? 1