Whether jurist of reason would find it debatable or wrong the District court assessment of Double Jeopardy Multiplicity counts

QUESTIONS PRESENTED I. Whether jurist of reason would find it debatable or wrong the District court assessment of Double Jeopardy Multiplicity counts under the same state ‘ statute, that was twice invoked, with the same elements, between the same parties? If so, was the State court decision an unreasonable application of Blockburger same elements test and objectively unreasonable? II. Whether jurist of reason would find it debatable or wrong the District court assessment of Double Jeopardy Issue Preclusion when a jury verdict necessarily decided an issue of ultimate fact adversely to the government that the government need to prove in order to convict beyond a reasonable doubt on a separate count of the same offense, with the same issue of ultimate fact between the same parties? III. Whether after review of the evidence in the light most favorable to prosecution any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the residual count beyond a reasonable doubt relying on the same evidence the jurors determined was insufficient evidence to convict the elements of a : separate count charged? If not, was the State court decision an unreasonable . application of Jackson standard and objective unreasonable? IV. When a petitioner claim fundamental injustice actual innocence exception to consider the merits of the constitutional violation that Probably Resulted in the conviction of a person who is actually innocent shall the Schlup and Carrier gateway open even if there is the impediment of a procedural default? V. Whether jurist of reason would find it debatable that a pro se petitioner states a cognizable constitutional claim, and reasonable jurist would find it debatable or wrong whether the district court ruling that a procedural bar was correct to precluded review of claims when state court reviewed the merits of the federal claims asserted in a habeas corpus petition? VI. Whether jurist of reason would have found it debatable that a pro se litigant petition states cognizable constitutional grounds with supporting facts to satisfy the screening threshold inquiry under Rule 4 governing Section 2254? If so, reasonable jurist would find it debatable or wrong that the District court was correct in its procedural ruling when it invoked an affirmative defense of procedural default more appropriate raised and argued by party in , their responsive document? viii Whether post-conviction counsel provided ineffective assistance to the petitioner during his First state post-conviction proceedings when counsel failed to pursue meritable constitutional violations that the defendant conveyed to counsel resulting in his Second proceeding? If so, was the State court decision an unreasonable application of Strickland two prongs and objectively unreasonable? ix gL