Whether the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals erred in denying Deante Drake's petition for rehearing en banc as untimely under Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(3)(A) despite the statutory construction of 18 U.S.C. § 3742(f)(1)(A) not being in any subsection of Rule 4(b)(1)(A)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED The three substantial questions below that need to be determined by the Supreme Court pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 10(a).are compelling questions that have not ever been determined by the Supreme Court, or any United States Court of Appeals, and they are: ‘(1) Whether when a Fed.R.Crim.P. 18 U.S.C. § 3742(£)(1)(A) Brief : is. filed for rehearing en banc, that the Court of Appeals governed under Fed.R.App.P. 4(b)(3)(A) should be considered as untimely if not filed within fourteen (14) days even though § 3742(f)(1)(A)'s ! statutory construction is not in any subsection of Rule 4(b)(1)(A), . and or any section of Rule 4(b)? (2) Whether the Supreme Court's decision in Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988) applies to incoming prison legal mail delays just like it does to outgoing legal mail delays by prison authorities as the Third Circuit held in United States v. Grana, 864 F. 2d 312; 1989 U.S. App (3rd Cir.)? ; (3). Whether it is a violation of a movant's First Amendment Right under the petition clause when the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals denied Drake's § 3742(f£)(1)(A) Brief, Fed.R.App.P. 27(b)-(c) Motion, and Fed.R.App.P. 8(a)(2) Motion for Stay as final under Local Rule 40(b) when there was never an adjudication on the : merits of the issues claimed? (0)