Whether the federal court of appeals abused its discretion

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 1. GneTHER Couat of APPEALS ABUSED (TS DISCRETION OUHERE senior CIRCUIT JUDGES Wo ARE MEMBERS OF THEORIGINALLY ASSIGNED DIVISION HEARING A CASE ARENOT AUTHORIZED BY CONGRESS To PaRTICIOATE INTHE DETERMINATION WRETHER To REHEAR THAT CASE IN BANC-”-417 US. G22,624(1174) 2 PP Z. WHETHER ORNoT A FEDERAL CouRT OF APPERLS DOES OR DOES HOT RECALLS ITS MANDATE TO REVISCT THE MERITS OF AN EARLIER DECISION CENYING QULHAC. RELIEF To STHTE PRISONER, THE Court ABUSES ITs o1SCRETION UNLESS IT ACTS To AWDID A MISCARRIAGE OFJUSTICE AS DEFIN EO BY OUR HABEAS JuaisPRUDENCE ? 2? 3. UmeETHER Eepenat CouRTOR APPEALS BY LUITRHDLOING THE DISMISSAL OF PETITIONER'S FED. W.H-CFRom Disteict COURT AND DENIAL OF COA APPLICATION iN FAVOR OF THE AG oF Texas -ATTORNEY Fo RESPONDENT, CONTRARY TO LIHTEHEAD V. JOHNSON 157 F.3d 384, (7 SHoULO BE HELD To Have ABUSED ITS oIscReTION 22% 4. Werner Feoeeat Court of APPEALS ERRED-TD FoLLoU Fed -RULE APP. PRoc.35, WHERE IT PROVIDES THAT THE CL ERK SHALLTRANSMIT ANY SUGGESTION To THE UUDGES In ORDER To FoLiow THE FRAP Ruc€ 35 To MAKE A VOTE ON THE [SSUES AND THEREFORE ABUSED ITS DISCRETION 22? S. WHETHER THE FRAP 41 aumtonizes A STAY OF MANDATE FOLLOUXNG ADENIAL OF COA ANOTHATA Cougr may STAY THE Mano Ate UITHOUT ENTERING AW ORDER s FIFTH CIRCUIT DECISION 7000 SO HERE Did ABUSED ITS DISCRETION 2? Ge Whether Fenenal CouRTor APPEALS ABUSED ITS DISCRETION, BECAUSE OF JUDICIAL NEGLIGENCE ARO MINISTERIAL DUTIES VIOLATION WAS ENOUGH Td VIOLATE PETITIONERS DUE PROCESS , AND ERRING , THE Court 010 WoT AVCIOED A MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE BASED ON A CLAIM OF ACTUALLY INNOCENT 77? 7. WHETHER Fenk@al Court oF APPEALS 010 NOTHING TO AVOID A MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE BASED ON A CLAIM OF ACTUALLY INNOCENCE AND THEREFORE ABUSED ITS DiscRETionN 72? 8. Waremer FeneRAL Court oF APPEALS AnD Disteict Court ERREN THAT PETITIONER Ma. TORGES DOES NOT MEET OR REACH FURTHER TD CONCLUDE THAT HE 1S ENTITLED TO AN EVIDENTIARY HERRING TO ARGUE IS CONSTITUTIONAL CLAMS, THEREFORE ABUSED ITS DISCRETION °¢? {WHETHER FEDERAL COURT OF APPEALS ERRED To AODRESS THEI SSUES OFTHE APPEAL ON THE 54(¢ motion FILED THROUGH U.S.C. 8 [291 THAT MERIT RELIEF, THEREFORE VILLATED PETITIONER'S DUE PROCESS ano EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW OFTHE [4TAmenoment 77? 10. WeerkeR District Court Asn Coser of APPEALS ERZED APTER SETTING OUT PLENARY PoweR OFTHE CouRT'S TO CONDUCT EVIDENTIARY HERGING IN HEARING ACTIONS, WHERE GRANTING of AN EUOENTIARY HERRING WOuro Be *MANOATORY TOWNSEND. 372 U.S. ar 313 77? (t. Weener Disreict And Couet OF APPEALS ERRED AFTER PETITIONER SHOWN CAUSE AND PREJUDICE AND MISCRRUAGE OFSUSTICE FRom State CouRts and THEREFORE ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY NoT ISSUING THE PROPER RULING Pe? (2. Weenkee PETITIONER HAS ComPELLED THE SraTE CouRTS To PRODUCE THE ComeLeTe [REAL] RECo20, BUT FEDEZALHRRERS COURT FAILED TD ISSUE THE PROPER RECOMMENDATION AND RPPLYTHE PROPER STANDARD TO GRANT PENTtione RELIEF 222 13.Wherner Suereme Coort For tte UniTeD States »1N SO HOLOING , ITSHOULD EXPRESS oPint ion AS TO WHETHER MQ. Torles's Frere And FouRtteNTH AMENDMENTS WERE VIOLATED ASSUMING ALL PETITONERS Claims To BE TRUE ¢ 2? 14. Wiener Suereme Guet for THE Unitteo STATES SHALL DETERMINE ISTHE FIRST INSTANCE WHERE ALL OF THE EXcEPrions EnumEnateo in 69225404 LI) -C8) APPLY To PETITIONER'S CASE, STATE AND CURT OF APPERLS DECISION . AD THEREFORE To THE OLSTICT QsuaT DEcISions T 2? tS. Waenien Supreme Guat FowTHe UniTed STATES SHAUL BELIEVE NECESSARY To DETERMINE ON REMAND WHETHER TUE StwTe Cauer's FACTUAL FINDINGS WARILANT A PRESUMPIION OF comnecTNEss ¢ 2? ’ to. Weemer Sueceme Cover for THe Uniten Sta TES AFTER DETERMINATION AND APPLICATION OF Lats SHALL CONDUCT ANY FURTHER PROCEEDINGS AS MAY BE RPPROPRIATE IN LIGRT OF THEIR RESOLUTION OFTHE Issues 12? 17. Wremen Tue Oisrercr Quer Ano CoutroF APPEALS 010 NoT FooWwEeD THE Ftent Ci QcurT asd UNiTeD STHTES SUPQEME CouRT PRECENENTS AND EXCLUSIVE STATUTORY EXCEPTIONS AnD THEREFORE AGUSED Irs DisceeTion 722% 18. WHETHE