Whether exceptions to the AEDPA one-year time limitations rendered the district court's 2015 dismissal for untimeliness of Cua's habeas petition and denial of his discovery motion as moot an abuse of discretion

QUESTIONS PRESENTED . Petitioner respectfully petitions this court to review the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit(filed 7/24/23) denying a : Certificate of Appealability from the U.S. District Court's denial of appellant's ‘ Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) and 59(e) motions (dated 3/30/22), filed by appellant ; subsequent to procedural errors by the District Court in its denial of petitioner's Rule 60(d)(1) motion (dated 6/29/21), which requested relief from the District Court's dismissal of Cua's habeas petition on 9/16/15. ‘ Pursuant to U.S. Supreme Court R. 10 the judgment is (1) in conflict with the decisions of another court‘'of appeals; (2) a:decision that's so far from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings or sanctioned such a departure by a lower court; and/or decided an important federal question(s) in a way that conflicts with relevant decisions of this court. Therefore, petitioner presents the following:issues that violated petitioner's due process rights:USCA 5,14 1 WHETHER EXCEPTIONS TO THE AEDPA ONE YEAR TIME LIMITATIONS RENDERED THE : DISTRICT COURT*S 2015 DISMISSAL FOR UNTIMELINESS OF CUA'S HABEAS PETITION AND DENIAL OF HIS DISCOVERY MOTION AS MOOT.AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION? Il WHETHER PETITIONER'S R. 60(d)(1) MOTION WAS AN INDEPENDENT ACTION THAT WAS NON=SUCCESSIVE THE DISTRICT COURT'S DENIAL OF THAT MOTION DENYING SUCH WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION? ; , III WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURT'S FAILURE TO CONSIDER MATERIAL FACTS AND DISPOSITIVE LEGAL ARGUMENTS REGARDING INNOCENCE AND A P.C. 12002 WEAPONS ENHANCEMENT WAS AN ABUSE OFDISCRETION' IN THE MATTER OF GUILT V. INNOCENCE; CONSIDERING THE PLETHORA OF DNA AND: EORENSIC.EVIDENCE POINTING TO A 3rd PARTY ‘PERPETRATOR, FAILURE BY THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE MEANS AND OPPORTUNITY, THE JURY MISAPPLYING COURT'S INSTRUCTIONS REGARDING "BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT? 1vLV WHETHER THE COURT'S FAILURE TO CONSIDER MATERIAL FACTS AND DISPOSITIVE LEGAL ARGUMENTS REGARDING INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL-BY° TRIAL AND APPELLATE : ATTORNEY WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION : Vv WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURT'S VIOLATION OF PROCEDURAL RULES IN ITS DENIAL OF PETITIONER'S R. 60(4)(1) MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRE< TION .