upon which Defendant relies. West v. G. D. Reddick, Inc., 302 N.C. 201, 203, 274 S.E.2d 221, 223 (1981) (stating that, “generally a judge or a court may take judicial notice of a fact which is either so notoriously true as not to be the subject of reasonable dispute or is capable of demonstration by readily accessible sources of indisputable accuracy”). As a result, a decision to reverse the trial court for failing to deliver Defendant’s requested instruction relating to the credibility of eyewitness identification testimony would, in essence, put this Court in the position of making factual determinations and exercising rule-making authority, neither of which we have the authority to do. Shera v. N.C. State Univ. Veterinary Teaching Hosp., _ N.C. App. _, _, 723 S.E.2d 352, 358 (2012) (<HOLDING>). As a result, we hold, in light of the
holding that this court is an errorcorrecting court not a lawmaking court holding that when a state court adjudication is contrary to clearly established supreme court precedent this court must review de novo whether petitioner is entitled to habeas relief holding that because a claim was never raised in the district court this court would not consider it for the first time on appeal holding that a bankruptcy trustee is an officer of the court appointed by the court directed by the court and paid by the court but is in no sense an agent or employee or officer of the united states holding that this court will not consider a theory or issue that was not pleaded or raised in the trial court