Does Cullen v Pinholster bar consideration of new evidence in federal habeas proceedings when the prosecutor presented false testimony to rebut the defense theory and refused to disclose exculpatory evidence?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED : Does Cullen v Pinholster $63 uss, 170, 18! Gold bar consideration of new , evidenca in Federal habeas proceedings , when in a Case like ming, | the prosecutor presented false Testimony to rebut the defense | theory of the case and the 4rothsu\ testimony I gave on the tang and refused te disclose the exculpatory and impeachment evidence | that would prove that testimony was false? . | | 2 Does Cullen v Pinholster relieve the state of its affirmahve | duty to disclose exel patory oc impeachment evidence. | 3. Is Brady, after Praholster, still clearly established law for the _ pucpose of Federal Habeas proceedings ; -. ds Napue v. Tlineis pact of the Brady linge of cases where the , Knowledge of the invest gating agency (including the police). acting. 00. the governments behalf imputed to the prosecution ” . as the Knowledge of the detective imputed to the prosewtor . for the purpose of @ Napue Claim? ea . S. TF the State cefuses te meat its afficmatve duty te disclose . . exculpatory and impeachment evidence Cana petitreaer fely on the Fed. R. Gv. P. governing Request for Admissions to _ 2 establish his Brady aod Napve Claim 0 6. Under tna due process vissse of the fifth and fourdternth | amendment, as well as, the sixth amendment clear note | and compulsory Clause does an alibi, if proven, Prove a | defendants innocence of the Crime charged.