Whether the undisputed and clear violation of a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to the assistance of counsel on direct appeal results in an exceptional and extraordinary 'injustice' contemplated by the Eleventh Circuit Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 41(b) and 28 U.S.C. 2255(b) that not only justifies but also requires recalling the mandate to prevent injustice

Questions Presented are’ , ; LY WHETHER THE UNDESRUTED AND CLEAR VIOLATION OF AN AQRELUNTS STATA AMENDMENT QEGKT TD THE. ASSISTANCE OF CoUNSEL __ONTDERECT AREAL TS AN EXCEPTIONAL AND EXTRAORDINARY “INGUSTECE” CONTEMRLATED BY THE ELEVENTH CERCUDT FEDERAL QULE OF ARTELLATE Reocenuee Al-\Q) (ivy Cie BAVA (6) ) ONTO NOT ONIN SUSTIETES BUT , ALSO REQUIRES QRECALING THE MANDATE TD PREVENT Troustece!? DY DOTWE ELEVENTH Crecurrs FeDeRnl Qube OF ARELLATE . Prcceures Sometow TRUMP AND THUS SUPERLEDE SUPREME CoutT BINDING QULE OF LAW ON U.S. CONST. AMEND. VIL VIOLATEONS ‘TD THE ASSTSTANCE OF COUNSEL OW DIRECT. AREAL Four EN DENSON v_ Ovo, Ass US-75 Gaga), AD TORN Sond v. ZELKST 34 US. ASKS (1438) c BY DOES THE DERAMIMENT OF TUSTEcE Desteny QUBTE CONFIDENCE AND FALTH IN LYS ASELETY TD GOVERN WHEN AS WERE, __ TRE SOUTCEDA GENERAL FoR THE UNTIED STATES BAS ADMETED DN ANTONES U AKEL y US. U-S:SUP-CT. CERT RET H Wo 6032 ax GB p95 ©, TD BEING Fury} AWARE TRAT AN AMERECAN CEIEZEN DED Nor WAVE NOR WATE THE ASSESTANCE OF COUNSEL “IN HIS DIRECT AREAL, QUT NET REMAENS STLENT TD THE “SrRUCRURAL ERROR/ “AUTOMATEC Reverso REQUMED OF THE JUDTCIARY INDIRECT CONFLICT LOFT TIS MISSION SINTEMENT “TO ENSURE FATA. AND IMRARira ADMINTSIOATION OF JUSTICE FoR ALL AMERECANS”C | A WHEN FACED LOPTR THE EYQUECET ALLEGATION TRAT THE ELEVENTH CrRCUET COURT OF ARPEALS WAS ,TISELE VIOLATED AN AMERICAN CETRZENS (ots AMENDMENT RECHT TO COUNSEL IN US.v.AKELOHTIBBA Wrcic), SHOULONT THE QANEL THERERN BE REQUIRED Th Gave A CLEAR UNDERSTANDENG OF THE ANALYTICAL PROCESS BY WORTCN TTS UCTEMATE ONE WORD FINDING OF DENTED LoAs REACKED SUCH THAT TRE usec | AS WELL AS THE. SURREME COURT CAN DETERMINE RATHER THAN SREGAURTE. THAT THE LAL WAS BEEN CORRECTIY AQUZED AND TIS “DECTSON WAS NOT BASED Ulon WREMSTCAL AND UNLAWFUL PERSONAL prerenence ¢ uv , . 5) PROVERED TWAT GONDING PRECEDENTS DOUGLAS v. CALTHbawrA $3 6.c4 84 (463), PENSON v. OREO 1045.cF SASS) nd TONNGON v. 2ERBST SBS.ck Void (1938) ARE STEUL Goop LAD, AND THAT FARQ MENDED AND REASONABLE QUREST Know d THAT A Cougt VIOLATES THE SIATH AMENDMENT = TE TY ALLOWS ADEFENDANT 7D RERRESENT WINKELE UETROUT EAST ORBTAENING A VALED WAIVER OF COUNSEL, WAS NOT THE Court BELO) GaNEN THE ACREARANCE OF USURRATION AND TUBICEAL ANARCHY "AS . DEFINED BY WEIS COURT IN WUTTOv:DAVES Hs4 US. 370,375), QODeTeUEZ DeQusras y. SHEARON AMERSCAN EXRESSENC, HAO US-8T7,484, AND A RIGHTE DIMENTSHED VIEW OF OUR CougTS... Only BECAUSE [INE ELEVENTH GrecurT , WAS] UNWELENG TD Connccr EIWere] OWN OBVEOUS MISTAKES AS JELACEDATED BY TWE VWonloQAQLE TUSTECE GoRSUCH IN RICKS v. UNTIED STATES U.S. S.F NO. \We-1806 Gune DomZ) ¢ . . (..) TE THE Areur TOTHE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL GUARANTEED 0} “THE SXTK AND FOougTEENTA AMENDMENTS LS TNDISDENSTALE Th THE FAP ADMINESTRATICON OF GUR ADVERSARTAL SYSTEM OF CREMINAL Justice, MARE. VMOUTON HTH U,S.154, (KEE, AND CAN ONILY GE RELTNQUTSWED By A VOLUNTARY, KNOWING AND INTELLIGENT WARVER Toh v-Tov ag, SHIU.S 19,88) FARQETIA v. CAS EFORNEA NZL US. $00 B21, GREWED v. WEATAMS 30 WS. 357,404 WY HAS WE. ELENENTA CEPCURT GIVEN THE ARREARANCE. TO HAVE. WIRETEWASHED TRE Acta DENIAL OF CounseL IN US v. AKEL 2 06-\3711-86 WOWERE THE CRETE CAL FACTS AND LEGAL ANALNSES ARE ON ALL FouaS “WETH RENSNv. OWED 109 Se 34 (\A88 AND, ON LTGuT OF THES FACT WELL THES SUPREME COURT EYRaSE wi TS SUPERVISORY AUTOeETY TO PRESERVE PUBLEC CONF CDENCE SEN THE _... SUDBICTAATES ABTLETY Th AFFORD FARR AND HONORABLE ADMINISTRATION _. OF JUST ECE By REINFORCING To THE Court BELO THAT? : . oe . “THE STXTH AMENDMENT WETHHOLDS FROM FEDERAL CouRTs ; , _ TEN ALL CREMENAL QROCEEDINGS |THE POWER AND AUITHORETY ; am TO DEPRIVE AV ACCUSED OF LIFE OR LIRERTY UNLESS HE BAS 98 WATVES THE ASSESTANCE OF Comser” ? . TY WERE THE OPINEIN CF THE \bowoeABuE Dustrce ELEwa KAGAN IS WELCOMED AND TMCURED, CAN THE CETETIONER WATVE Any POTENTIAL CONFLICT BETWEEN THE AQQEAL BELOW AND ER TNVOWEMENT _ TN AYE Lv. UNETED STATES S58 US. (1S, 130 5.c% WL WS LEA 2d 488 (Zao) © ASTWE SOLECE TDR