Does 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) require a federal district court to allow the full 1-year period for habeas applications?

Questions Presented 1. Does 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d), which provides in part that a “1-year period of limitations shall apply” to applications filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, require that a federal district court allow the applicant the full period provided for by statute, notwithstanding the court's inherent power to control its docket? 2. Does the Equal Protection Clause require a district court to treat indigent prisoners who seek habeas relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 similarly to non-indigent prisoners by allowing both classes of applicants the one-year period provided for by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)? 3. Does the special issue asked of the sentencing jury in a capital case in Texas violate a defendant’s right to due process and to a fair trial because the jury is punishing the defendant for future conduct, rather than past conduct, and because the predictions about future conduct are inherently unreliable and wrong far more often than they are right? 4. Does the Texas death penalty punishment scheme run afoul of In re Winship and its progeny by placing the burden of proof on a capital murder defendant to persuade the jury that he should not be sentenced to death because mitigating factors outweigh the single aggravating factor (i.e., future dangerousness) established by the state? ii