Whether the court of appeals should have issued a Certificate of Appealability upon the Petitioner's claim and issue of whether the district court erred when it fail to determine whether the 1-Year limitation period was tolled until the issuance of Mandate and the Petitioner State post-conviction application by applying governing State procedural law in determining whether the Petitioner's State habeas application was pending within the meaning of Title 28 U.S.C., Section 2244(d)(2)

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED QUESTION No. 1 ; Whether the court of appeals should have issued a (Certificate of Appealability upon the Petitioner's claim and issue of whether the district court erred when it fail to determine whether the 1-Year.:limitation period was tolled until the issuance of Mandate danthé: Petitioner State post-conviction application by applying governing State procedural law in determining whether the ©: i « Petitioner's State habeas application was: pending within the meaning of Title 28 U.S.C., Section court applied governing State procedural law in determining whether the Petitioner's State habeas application was ending within the meaning of Title 28 U.S.C., Section 2244(d9 (2) the Petitioner's federal habeas petition would have bean considered timely. QUESTION No. 2 Whether the court of appeals should have issued a Certificate of Appealability upon the Petitioner's claim and issue that the district court erred by failing to consider and address tha wns issue of whether this claim of Legal Innocence survived the application of the 1-Year limitation period because there is no valid statute on the books that allows for the conviction of the Aggravated Robbery of one person as a lesser-included offense of the offense charged of Murder of another person. Had the district court considered and addressed the issue the contours of the fundamental miscarriage of justice in the mist of preventing the of the Petitioner would have been warranted. QUESTION No. 3 Whether the court of appeals should have issued a Certificate of Appealability upon the Petitioner's claim and issue that the district court erred by failing to consider and address the issues as presented by the Petitioner that deprived him of his :. . constitutional rights to Due Process under the 14TH Amendment to the United States Constitution, when review of the claiin as to whether a claim of Double-Jeopardy under the 5TH Amendment to the United States Constitution provides for an exception to the 1-Year limitation period as a prima facie claim of Actual Innocence? Absent the constitutional claim of Double-Jeopardy, no reasonable juror could have factually convicted the Petitioner. i. i