1.) An important Question in the Administration of Justice, which has the potential to effect a large number of american citizens, is: "Does the U.S. Supreme Court view [i]t [habeas corpus] as a static, narrow, formalistic remedy; or has its scope grown to achieve its grand purpose - - the protection of individurals against erosion of their Right to be free from wrongful restraints upon their liberty? and if so, on what boundry is such and liberty' defined?"

2. ) Is there any evidence within the lower U.S. District Court's conclusion to Conner's §2254 that suggest an apparent a- buse of discretion which prevented Conner from receiving a fair- unbiased judgment?

3. ) This next Question is an exact duplicate to what was the sole basis of Conner's State & Federal Habeas Corpus Pleadings; neither court ever gave answer to this crucial Constitutional Claim (verbatim): "After assessing all the Facts and supporting evidence in correlation to precedent and the many statutory LAWS which govern the issue [in this Court's opinion] was Conner's Pe-restraints tition for Discretionary Review timely delivered; Yes or No?"

4.) Was the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals decision to deny Conner a COA in keeping with 28 U.S.C. §2254(c)(2) and the many binding precedents established by this Supreme Court of the United States?

Does the U.S. Supreme Court view habeas-corpus as a static-narrow-formalistic remedy or has its scope grown to achieve its grand purpose the protection of individuals against erosion of their Right to be free from wrongful restraints upon their liberty