Whether the district court erred in denying claim one of the petitioner's 28 U.S.C. § 2254 as procedurally barred

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW ~ I. WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN DENYING CLAIM ONE OF THE PETITIONER'S 28 U.S.C. § 2254 AS PROCEDURALLY BARRED WHEN THE STATE COURT VIOLATED HIS 57H, 6TH, AND 14TH, AMENDMENT RIGHTS WHERE A DISCOVERY VIOLATION HAD TAKEN PLACE PURSUANT TO BRADY v. MARYLAND, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S. Ct. 1194, 10 L. Ed. 2d 215 (1963)? Il. WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN DENYING THE PETITIONER’S CLAIMS REGARDING THE SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE OF THE PETITIONER'S 28 U.S.C. § 2254 PURSUANT TO JACKSON V. VIRGINIA, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 61 L. Ed. 2d 560; (1979) AND IN DOING SO VIOLATED HIS 57H, 6TH, AND 14TH, AMENDMENT RIGHTS? Ill. WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN DENYING CLAIMS SIX THROUGH ELEVEN OF THE PETITIONER'S 28 U.S.C. § 2254 FOR THE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COURT APPOINTED COUNSEL WHERE THE STATE COURT DECISIONS WERE CONTRARY TO OR AN UNREASONABLE APPLICATION OF STRICKLAND V. WASHINGTON, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984)? Ul ° | oe