Whether the defendant's guilty plea was involuntary due to an unconstitutional no-parole sentence

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED C4) as the riskch tree stluallaure. | U.S.C. _§ wncocae ag . in 18 . Un constitutinal VAG VE mM the light of Sessions ve VY nally y) | Foo a) 554 US. 222 [38 S. Cte 1204, 200 L. ed. 27 549 C2018 >And 7 Tohnson ve United Stoctes, {g5 Ss. Ct. 255L 192 L. Ed. 2h 569 (20IBD&, J ‘ C2) ds Chils guilt plea inveluntanr nvalid_because the (Henwitheutparcle sentence in Te er tinel y uncenctitutrnah 1 U.S.C. & Cabaes Whee toe with § 724 cc y¢ 3c TF ress Keoere: 4 Che -to Sigh) whic es this case. differen ande distinguishable from Brody ve United States, 377 US. 742, S. Ct 1463, 25 L. EL 2d 747 C1970, C3) Shouth a pre se Criminal) defendant be allowed te File his/her pleadnegs electrnicall, ts ensure that they are. Aled property wit! vt any issves CA) S$ hovtd a defendant automatically PRCEIVE © sin ple medical examinoctave Cte prve any myuces) re She shows police brutality in his/her criminad cose (Ss) Tsa criminal fetonse attorney fematiolly nthe ced he Race? Coit, priteed pre. S& on hit own te ruse at least Z meters) ay honbrivelous claims sues Meappellate BricPon the Mente , . 1. C6) Shoull_o direotappeal be reversed | because the dppellee (Coveoument) tailed Mt» mail ite Kesponse bic to the Appellants ress 2 pm | (7) Should three judges Cin ex dinect eciminah | uta tn thie = pacote lawcsuits fer fudieiak i | : | | | | | | |