Does a federal habeas petitioner's claim of actual innocence of a non-capital sentence exception operate, in the wake of McQuiggin v. Perkins, 133 S.Ct. 1924 (2013), to surmount both procedural bars and 1-year limitation period

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED . QUESTION No. 1: Does alfederal habeas petitoner's claim of actual : innocence of a non-capital sentence exception operate, in the wake of McQuiggin v. Perkins, 133 S.Ct. 1924 (2013), to surmont both procedural bars and i-year limintation period when several Circuit Court of Appeals have held that McQuiggin does not apply ; apply to habeas claims based on actual innocence of a sentencing error. United States v. Jones, 758 F.3d 579 (4th Cir. 2014). QUESTION No. 2: Whether the Court of Appeals should have issued a Certhfiacate of Abpealability from the district court's determination . that the Petitioner's claim of actual innocence sentencing error was unexhausted and procedurally barred,when such an exception is a creature of federal law not subject to the rules of exhaustion and procedural default. QUESTION No. 3: Whether the Court of Appeals should have issued ~ a Certificate: of Appealability from the district court's determination of the case without considering and addressing the Petitioner's claim of actual innocence in sentencing error when Circuit precedent and several Circuit Appellate Courts have extended the actual ' imnocence exception to non-capital sentencing proceedings. Haley v. Cockrell, 306 F.3d 257 (5th Cir. 2002), U.S. v. Mikalajunas, 186 F.3d 490 (4th Cir. 1999), and Spence v. Meadow Correctional Facility, 219 F.3d 162 (2nd Cir. 2000). ~ QUESTION No. 4: Whether the Court of Appeals should have issued a Certificate of Appealability to determine whether the district court's determination that several of the Petitioner's claims were exhausted when asnew State legal decision provides that the claims were not exhausted; and not adjudicated on the merits so that the district court's assessment of the claims under Title 28 U.S.C., Section 2254(d)(1) and (2) was erroneous or a clear evror in law. : In context thereof, a reasonabbe juristscwoldld find it debatable as to whether the court of appeals should have issued a Certificate of Appealability. i