Whether a state habeas petitioner's pleading was timely filed under the mailbox rule

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED QUESTION No. 1 Gan a Clerk of a Federal appellate court refuse to file a : pleading by a State habeas petitioner seeking a Panel Rehearing from the denial of an application seeking a certificate of appealability as untimely when the plading was tendered for filing was timely filed when placed in prison officials’ handg for mailing and filing with the Clerk of a federal appellate court? QUESTION No. 2 Whether a State federal habeas corpus petitioner is deprived of the opprotunity to be heard and have judicial findings made by a United States District Court upon a claim for federal habeas corpus relief as presented to the State court and district court when the district court declines to consider and address the claim for federal habeasccorpus relief as presented and argued? QUESTION No. 3 Does the difference accorded to a State court determination that a federal claim is procedurally defaulted be reviewed by a federal court if the habeas petitioner satisfies the requirement of Title 28 U.S.(., Section 2254(d)(2)? QUESTION No. 4 Whether the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Gircuit should have issued a Certificate of Appealability from the district court's determination that the Petitioner was not deprived of his constitutional rights to effective assistance of counsel as assured under the 6TH Amendment to the United States Constitution? ISSUE No. 1: Whether the Petitioner was deprived of his gonstitutional rights to Due Process under the 14TH Amendment to the United States Constitution because the Clerk for the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Gircuit employ a Circuit Internal Operating Procedure to hold that the Petitioner's Petition for Panel Rehearing was untimely filed under the Mailbox Rule and the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure? ISSUE No. 2: Whether the Petitioner was deprived of his constitutional rights to Due Process under the 14TH Amendment to the United States Constitution because the District Court fail to address and consider the Petitioner's claim for federal habeas relief as presented and argued? Gy . ’