Whether the District Court, Appeals Court for the Second Circuit, and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals sitting En Banc committed reversible legal error by failing to apply Supreme Court precedents in Buck v. Davis, Martinez v. Illinois, and Crist v. Bretz

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED ‘ [1] Ground One . a : : . The District Court, Appeals Court for thé Second Circuit and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals sitting En Banc | committed reversible legal error, for failing to use Supreme Courts Precedence Buck v. Davis, 580 U.S. (2017) held: . "Prisoner (Marino) need not show success on his merits of his claim to receive either a COA/2241 or Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 60(b) inguiry was NOT coextensive with a merits analysis and that the only question is wheher the applicant: Marino has shown that a "Jurist of reason could disagree with the District Court's resolution of his above constitutional claims or that jurist could conclude the issues presented supra are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further." [2] Ground Two The District Court, Appeals Court for the Second Circuit and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals sitting En Banc . committed reversible legal error for failing to use Supreme Courts Precedence cases: Martinez v. Illinois, 134 S.Ct. 2070; 188 L.Ed.2d 1112; 2014 U.S. LEXIS 3613; 82 U.S.L.W. 4414; 24 Fla.L.Weekly Fed. S 777 No. 13-5967 Decided May 27, 2014; and Crist v. Bretz, 437 U.S. 28, 35, 98 S.Ct. 2156, 57 L.Ed.2d 24 (1978); which held in relevant part that once the Jury is empaneled & sworn all dismissed charges (Marino's Act-B/Count 30) is dismissed with prejudice and jeopardy attaches, Serfass v. United States, 420 U.S. 377, 394, 95 S.Ct. 1055, 43 L.Ed.2d ; 265 in cases of a jury trial, jeopardy attaches when a jury is empaneled and sworn, as that is the point when the Defendant. (Marino) is put to trial before the trier of the facts." Crist, 437 U.S. at 35, 98 S.Ct. 2156,57 L.Ed.2d 24; see also USA v. Martin Linen Supply Co., 430 U.S. 564, 569, 97 S.Ct. 1349, 51 L.Ed.2d 642 (1977); Serfass, supra, at 388, 95 S.ct. 1055, 43 L.Ed.2d 265; 6 W.LaFave, J. Israel, N.King, & O. Kerr, Criminal Procedure §25.1(d)(3rd ed.2007) On the first day of Marino's trial Sept.28, 1998,the Government , moved to dismiss Count 30/Act-B cocaine conspiracy against Marino, after the Marino jury was empaneled--& sworn, Document: 581, (97-cr-40009-NMG. (D.Mass); thereafter the District Court , ALLOWED government's Document: 581 Motion to dismiss Count 30/ : Act-B cocaine conspiracy against Marino on Oct.22, 1998, see Document Date: Oct.22, 1998 via: #97-~cr-40009-NMG. (D.Mass) thereafter the government committed reversible legal error by placing the Dismissed Count 30/Act-B Cocaine Conspiracy back on the December 22, 1999 Jury Verdict Form against Marino in Marino's second Jury Trial. See "Marino II, Dec.22,1999 jury : trial Verdict form, Document: 1079 in support herein, which the jury marked Proven in both Counts 1 & 2; : « Fa See Exhibits, Al~ Als. 2 : , 4 [3] Ground Three The District Court, Appeals Court for the Second Circuit and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals sitting En banc. ° committed reversible legal error, for failing to use the : : logic depicted in United States v. Wheeler, F.3d ,2018 WL 1514418. (4th Cir.2018), which allows the Courts jurisdiction under the New Savings Clause Test under 28 U.S.C. §2255(e), which would allow Marino's 28 U.S.C.§2241 to : proceed forward into the merits determination, as seen in . Grounds One & Two supra; ; : [4]