Did the District court abuse its discretion under 'unreasonable application' when petitioner Love's proposed amendment did 'relate back' to the original and 2020 claim, that 'arouse out of the same conduct, transaction, and occurence set forth' both stating: Ineffective assistance of counsel and prosecutorial misconduct?

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 1. Did the District court abuse its discretion under "unreasonable application" when petitioner Love's proposed amendment did "relate back" to the original and 2020 claim, that “arouse out of the same conduct, transaction, and occurence set forth" both stating: Ineffective assistance of counsel and prosecutorial misconduct? '2. Did the District and Circuit court err, when denying Love by entering a DECISION : in conflict and-contrary with decision's of their court and other court's on the same important matters-deciding on : important federal questions in a way that conflicts with Supreme Court precedent and relevant decisions? 3. Is it an abuse of discretion and miscarriage of justice when a petitioner sets out new “evidence and facts" to ineffective assistance of counsel and prosecutorial misconduct and not conduct an evidentiary hearing? 4. Did petitioner Love make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right by not having the "reasonable representation" guaranteed by Strickland “v. Washington, 466 U.S. 688 (1984)% Ineffective assistance of counsel? 5. Did. the lower court err, when it decided that Love's petition did not provide respondent with "fair notice" of the new theories, when each separate congeries of facts support the grounds raised?,As all was raised in 440.10 motions first. 6. "Facially" is petitioner Love's conviction supported by the sufficient evidence of the reasonable: doubt standard? If not.then his incarceration is in violation of the Due Process Clause by excluding evidence, perjury and misrepresentation. 7. Is it a constitutional error to exclude testimony, because defense had evidence necessary and identification . of experts-within a timely fashion: testimony that | : would have been consistent with their disclosure within their diagnoses, and without this testimony did it have a prejudicial. effect? ; . 8. Has the lower courts applied the correct standard on ineffective assistance of counsel? : 8.