Whether the Court of Appeals exceeded its authority under Rule 52(a) F.R.C.P. in dismissing Petitioner's actual innocence claim without an evidentiary hearing

QUESTIONS PRESENTED: ; ‘ I. Did the Court of Appedls exceed.its authority under Rule 52{a} FeReCePe, in holding that Petitioner has not mace a substantial : showing of denial of a constitutional right in regards to Williams gateway actual innocence claim, and dismissed the appeal? : -II. Does Rule 52(a), F.R-C.P., forbid the Court of Appeals from reviewing the credibility finding of a trial judge in relation to a claim of actual innocence? . III. Did petitioner met his burden of establishing a gateway , claim of actual innocence? IV. Did the Court of Appeals erred when it upheld the trial courts — ruling in regards to the new evidence being from family members . : are not credible and compelling evidence withut affording Petitioner _ of the opportunity to meet his burden of preof at an evidentiary hearing? ; : : , Ve Whether Petitioner has made a "colorable" and “credible" claim of actual innocence within the Schulp/House requirements of the United States Supreme Court and other Circuit Court of Appeals/ ; VI. Did the trial court erred when it gave deference in violation of the House ruling for AEDPA standards for deference to the . ‘. State Court ruling for an actual innocence claim ruled by this Court? VII. Petitioner was entitled to an evidentiary hearing in order to establish that his. exculpatory trustworthy eyewitnesses were : reliable for a compelling actual innocence claim under Schulp/ House, and a hearing is one requirement of Schlup's in regards to an actual innocence claim?.; : Vill. There is no AEDPA requirements for an actual innocence claim once a criminal defendant pass the “gateway”, and presents new evidence, a evidentiary hearing is necessary to determine credibility, old and new evidence, with admissible, or inadmissble : evidence? ; ; ~ (4) ,