1. Whether, under the circumstances presented hear, petitioner 's constitutional right to a fair trial due to insufficient identification evidence claim was procedurally barred for failure to comply with State procedural rules governing motions for trial orders of dismissal of indictment that were adequate to support the denial of relief, and if so, whether he has shown 'L cause 'R and 'Lprejudice 'Rto excuse the default.

2. Whether the lower Courts erred in deciding that Petitioner 's Fifth claim was procedurally barred for failure to sufficiency alert the State Court of Appeals to the Constitutional nature of his claim.

3. Whether the lower Courts erred in deciding that Petitioner 's Third, Fourth, and Sixth claims, were procedurally barred, for failure to exhaust them before the State 's highest Court of Appeals.

4. Whether the lower Courts erred when it applied Stone v. Powell to bar petitioner (Sua Ponte), from rasing claim that the State erred in deciding that a good faith exception disqualified Petitioner from the application of newly declared Constitutional rule to criminal cases pending on direct review, regarding C.S.L.L information.;:And if so, was the District Court denial of claim, in error of clearly established law, when it failed to provide petitioner with an opportunity to be heard as to why this claim should not be barred by Stone v. Powell under the Fourth Amendment.

5. Whether the lower Courts erred in incorrectly applying the standard set fourth in People v. Rodriguez, 79 N.Y.2d 445 (1992), by relying on Simmons trial testimony to establish familiarity with Petitioner. When Neil v. Biggers, 93 S.CT. 375 (1972), sets fourth the proper standard to be applied by the U.S. Supreme Court U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 14.

6. Whether the lower Courts erred in ignoring Petitioner 's Constitutional right to due process of law, not to be the subject of suggestive police identification procedures that create a substantial risk and likelihood of irreparable misidentification. And

7. Whether both the Magistrate and District Court erred in denying all of Petitioner 's claim 's under Ineffective Assistance of Counsel, while only reviewing the failure to request a Wade or Rodriguez hearing, (which resulted in a fundamental miscarriage of justice).

Whether the lower courts erred in procedurally barring petitioner's constitutional claims and denying relief under various legal standards