Can a District Court erroneously declare timely and proven Brady-Napue claims untimely

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED : The Antiterrorism And Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) codified at 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A), contains a one-year statute of limitations for filing federal habeas corpus petitions. 1. Can a District Court applying United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, : 682 (1985), on de novo review of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963); and Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959) Claims, that the District Court after . an Evidentiary Hearing, explicitly found had a "Material Impact" on Petitioner's trial, erroneously declare the timely and proven Material Brady/Napue Claims untimely, to subject the Claims to the heightened ‘actual . innocence! standard of Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 316 (1995), and refuse to adhere too the Court's conjunctive language in Schlup, "[Unless the court is [also] satisfied that the trial was free of [nonharmless constitutional error.]" Thereafter, perpetuated by the Ninth Circuit, contrary to Fed. R. , : ; Civ. Proc. 52(a), overturning the factual’ findings of the District Court, to ( also eschew, address[ing] this Court's Second Clause, i.e., the conjunctive language in Schlup? ; 2. Under California Law, Postconviction Discovery pursuant to California Penal Code § 1054.9, for Defendants Sentenced to Death, or Imprisonment for Life Without the Possibility of Parole, is a State Statutory Right, deemed part of he prosecution of a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Therefore, does Statutory Tolling under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2), apply during ‘properly filed' Appeals of Discovery Proceedings outside the direct review process, : that sought, a reexamination of disclosed Brady Material the State Court also | joined with ‘properly filed' habeas corpus petitions, a ‘properly filed' Appeal, that also raised the issue of Petitioner's illegal sentence? 3. Did the District Court err by failing to consider Brady Material collectively, for materiality purposes, under Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 436 (1995); and if so, does that failure do violence to the ‘actual innocence gateway' procedure of Schlup, because the Court's ratio decidendi of Schlup, is Brady itself, also dictating the collective consideration of Brady Material, disclosed by the State in Federal Habeas Corpus Proceedings; exacerbated by the Ninth Circuit's refusal to grant a Certificate of : Appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), even on a Brady Claim the District Court found timely, which the District Judge previously overruled the Magistrate Judge on—ruling that that Brady claim must be considered collectively under Kyles, demonstrating the Brady Claim to be reasonably debatable amongst jurist of reason? | Sf (i) o