Whether the district court erred in dismissing the petitioner's habeas corpus application under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 based on a determination that the petitioner failed to exhaust state court remedies and that the application was untimely under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA)

No question identified. : kes ips Pesentea be <a Wield orate 7 of rhe dhs Chast Hatton AOtWs peeesicaae” 76 PP dhs AF 8 EBL weer PUNE SSOAS OT PFS CT & OSE 4 1 ft-Lbe tt barbs Bala oy (POV Se res OY Law %@ be SOP igry cOsgeot a Migglscoave 2 fhe 26 Lear aad ea =r ie a PCCo a! LEC Ve GOODE Sevrore We LoY Zeige weeks Sate Laredo 2g 07 VY Lue 23,0082 C2) Ae Ce Af Proceestigs 2 bplaavore yor grt Cyethan (VWew dir He provisions COLE S.C$§ cov LY USC § SY _subrho a pttle & She Cour BPYRERA Yrrattage gf Poor are’ Jeterrricaaeions Yor gle Py0s Poe Ly 7 fie OS eo ard” Sor @& ctsgaco7e GOGO jpigpe wor" LOF PFE gay SUYOUDIEG titty Se PO sons yaa LOS. & ESS, “a Complrone uit AS. Sup. 04 bude MYEU3LM Nile LL ALA) the Hpplientiog 76 Beste? Lew? © Saetl Llvoh2e Wihtse. bee +s tere 0g er“ 0 Le veWe Wed Zs ttepor ped a Q' Ie ~ OVO23 J -PIG , rhe _pedjrtea? o& we stat Louk & loot Bll! Ltrs Jon 2.0 AO, OF Fd F236" ALY 2d, Zhe Lily oo Mgt” Ma OE KP BIES Shon gf Me pCUE fbr ff Cores 4 SATEEN? OF SUCLS po 7tQYy eam a