Whether under Wainwright v. Sykes a court's direct appeal order can be procedurally defaulted and barred from 2254 Habeas Corpus review for failure to comply with an adequate and independent state law

1. Whether under Wainwright v. Sykes , 433 U.S.72 (1977) Id. At 81 states appellant court ’s direct appeal order can be procedurally defaulted and barred from 2254 Habeas Corpus review for court's failure to comply with an adequate and independent state law? 2. Whether a district court would be precluded by a lack of subject matter jurisdiction or by a violation of due process that deprives a party of notice or the opportunity heard from entering 2254 Habeas Corpus rulings concerning claims barred from federal review by an adequate and independent state law? 3. If a district court has entered judgment on claims barred from federal review by an adequate and independent state law, then can 28 U.S.C. 2244 (b) of the AEDPA bar a party from a Rule 60 (b)(4) void judgment challenge in 2254 Habeas Corpus proceeding and; 4. Would the application of 2244(b) of the AEDPA to bar a Rule 60 (b) (4) void judgment challenge to a district court ’s judgment entered on claims barred from federal review by an adequate and independent state law and entered in violation of due process, the right to appeal, and was entered without jurisdiction, conflicts with the Supreme Court holdings in Gonzales v. Crosby . 545 US. 524 (2005) Id. At 534 and United Student Aid Funds, Inc v. Espinosa , 599 US. 260 (2010) and thereby nullify the reason and purpose for rule 60 (b) (4) void judgment motions in 2254 habeas corpus proceeding in similar cases? 5. Whether the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over Woodson'S 2254 petition prior to entering judgment?