WHETHER A DETERMINATION BY THE LOWER COURTS THAT THE
OFFICERS ONLY DETAINED THE PETITIONER, AND NOT ARRESTED HIM,
WHICH FINDING WAS IN DIRECT CONFLICT WITH THE SWORN TESTIMONY OF ARRESTING OFFICERS, PRODUCED AN ARBITRARY AND
CAPRICIOUS DECISION?

WHETHER THE LOWER COURTS ARBITRARILY DENIED. PETITIONER
AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING BY DRAWING INFERENCES FROM A COLD
RECORD WHEN THE COURT'S RULING WAS IN DIRECT CONFLICT WITH
SWORN TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES FOR THE GOVERNMENT?

SHOULD A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY HAVE BEEN GRANTED
WHEN THERE WAS NO DISPUTE BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT AND THE
DEFENDANT/PETITIONER THAT THE PETITIONER HAD BEEN ARRESTED
BUT THE LOWER COURTS MADE ITS OWN FINDING THAT PETITIONER
HAD ONLY BEEN DETAINED?

Whether a determination by the lower courts that the officers only detained the petitioner, and not arrested him, which finding was in direct conflict with the sworn testimony of arresting officers, produced an arbitrary and capricious decision?