Whether the lower court erred in its interpretation of the relevant statute

No question identified. : yf. RELIEF SOUGHT Petitioner prays for writ of mandamus or Prohibition as _ appropriate before this Honorable Court requesting rélief from ; Amendment(790) of the United States Sentencing Guidelines that's clearly a (Retroactive Amendment) that (now) calls into serious questions of the Seventh Court of Appeals' previous findings in petitioner's direct appeal at published opinion U.S v. Mark Clark 309 Fed. Appx. 60, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 2688 (7th cir. 2009), discussed more further. UNAVAILABILITY OF RELIEF IN OTHER COURTS No other court can grant the relief sought by petitioner because; 1) U.S.S.G. Amendment (790) cannot be raised in a 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) proceedings, because it's a "Clarifying Amendment" not listed in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(d), 2) "Clarifying Amendments" are properly raised in a direct appeal proceedings, but petitioner's direct appeal has been affirmed since 2009. See ; United States v. Clark 309 Fed. Appx. 60, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 2688 (7th cir. 2009); And 3) A 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceedings do not cover claims of non-constitutional dimensions, in which Amendment (790) is not cognizable under a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ; motion. Therefore, this is the only court that can aid this matter at this time to be consistent with petitioner's lst Amendment Rights to the U.S. Constitution that provides: "Congress shall make mo dew cestecting 41 setnaelvbment..." the right a° the , ii make no law respecting an establishment...the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." UNSUITABILITY OF ANY OTHER FORM OF RELIEF No other form of relief will be sufficient to protect the rights of the Petitioner or preserve the ability to seek review of the lower court's jurisdiction but this Honorable Court's (Rule 20) because: 1) Petitioner's U.S.S.G. Amendment (790) issue is not cognizable under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, because of it's nonconstitutional dimension, 2) Petitioner's only form of relief is before this Honorable Court, because A) Habeas Corpus and/or : 28 U.S.C. § 2255 cannot cover this matter, B) 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) cannot trigger jurisdiction for this Amendment because it's not listed in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(d), however, Amendment (790) is established to be "retroactive" by Circuit Court of Appeals, as discussed further, and 3) Petitioner submitted a (Recall Mandate). However, the Seventh Court of Appeals denied this motion.