1. whether the doctrine of equitable tolling should apply to Mr. Harris' procedural defaulted claims based on a credible showing of actual innocence for the purpose of having Harris Constitutional claims heard to warrant habeas relief?

2. whether the Court's misapplied the Schlup v. Delo, actual innocence standard for the purpose of having the Court determine whether Harris Constitutional errors alleged in the habeas petition warranted relief?

3. Can new theory of cause of death unsupported by expert opinion deny equitable tolling under Schlup?

4. Whether a time of death is scientific and relevant in criminal proceedings?

5. Whether an evidentiary hearing should have been held to determine the nature of scientific evidence, when Mr. Harris requested the District Court to appoint an expert to assist the Court pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 706(a) and to determine what defense counsel would have done had the withheld evidence been turned over in a reasonable time to evaluate prejudice?

6. Whether the Court's misapplied Brady violation, in the context of whether there is a reasonable probability that, had the withheld evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different?

7. Whether the Court's erred in failing to grant Harris Habeas Relief on the merits of a Brady violation?

8. Whether an intentional Brady violation warrants the granting of habeas relief?

9. Whether the Court's ruling were in line with other ruling of that Court and/or Supreme Court rulings?

10. Whether Habeas relief or actual-innocence gateway should be extended for unreliable scientific evidence?

Question not identified.