1. Whether the sixth circuits application of "double deference "under ADEPA
and Jackson v. Virginia. Violates due process clause when the defendant was
convicted without direct evidence, based solely on inference, disputed
testimony, and not corroborated jail calls.

2. Whether a conviction for aggravated murder and conspiracy can
constitutionally stand where the petitioner was not present, no witness,
placed her at the scene, and the state 's witnesses contradicted themselves or
recanted, yet the appellate court refused a certificate of appeal.

3. Whether rigid procedural default rules violate a pro se petitioners
constitutional right to meaningful Habeas review when ineffective Assistance
of counsel and bias.

4. Whether sixth circuit violates 28 U.S. 2253 by denying a certificate of appeal
where reasonable jurists debate the sufficiency of evidence and constitutional
irregularities in McFarland 's conviction

5. Governed by the certificate of Appeal (COA) requirements of the AEDPA
Amendments to 28 USCS 2254 which governs habeas corpus proceeding
indicated post in federal district. Apply to cases filed in the district court
post- AEDPA Amendments 28uscs 2253.

6. AEDPA- A federal court may only grant Habeas relief if the state court
decision was contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly federal law
as evidence evincing such misconduct.

7. Whether the due process clause is violated when the state court is affirms a
conviction for aggravated murder conspiracy based solely on circumstantial
evidence of association and alleged motive where no reasonable doubt that
MCFARLAND solicited aided, or agreed to the commission of the homicide as
required by JACKSON V. VIRGINIA, 443 US 307 (1979).

8. Whether a claim that a sentence was imposed vindictively in violation of due
process becomes moot for federal habeas purposes when the petitioner was later
sentence notwithstanding the alleged constitutional violation at the original
sentence.

9. Whether federal habeas courts apply an unconstitutionally excessive level of
deference under AEDPA when reviewing sufficiency -of the evidence claims,
effectively insulating state court decisions from meaningful elements of
complicity beyond a reasonable doubt.

Question not identified.