When police officers attempt to gain voluntary admittance to a residence by use of a ruse, which fails, and are peacably asked to present a search warrant, does it violate the homeowner's Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure if invading officers, instead of presenting a search warrant, suddenly and without warning, forcibly rob a third-party of a key to the home, and use the stolen key to break in?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. When police officers attempt to gain voluntary admittance to a residence by use of a ruse, which fails, and are peacably asked to present a search warrant, does it violate the homeowner's Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure if invading officers, instead of presenting a search warrant, suddenly and without warning, forcibly rob a third-party of a key to the home, and use the stolen key to break in? 2. Does it violate the due process rights and/or unconstitutionally prejudice a defendant if a district court disregards a flagrant Fourth Amendment violation, and admits evidence under a "totality of the circumstances" standard, to admit otherwise unconstitutionally seized evidence in a criminal proceeding? 3. Does it violate a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel if a defense attorney deliberately mis-informs his client that certain unconstitutional acts by officers who invaded his residence for the purpose of search and seizure did not violate his Fourth Amendment rights when the facts.prove otherwise, and the attorney refuses to inform the court or question the witness regarding these facts, purposefully sabotaging his client's defense and causing severe negative consequences for his client? 4. Does an attorney violate his client's Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel if the attorney fails to ensure that the amount of restitution demanded by the prosecution as a part of his client's plea agreement comports with the dictates of Doyle Randall Paroline v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 1710, 188 L. Ed. 2d 714 (2011); the Consumer Credit Protection Act (15 USCS s § 1673); and (because petitioner is a citizen of South Carolina) : "South Carolina State statute § 15-41-30(10)(E) which prohibits the garnishment of a South Carolina disability pension by any court? i ‘a , : ' ‘ , 5.. Dees an attorney provide Constitutionally deficient representation if he fails to demonstrate to his client that thé sentence and restitution demanded by the prosecution as part of the plea agreement is not disparate from similarly situated defendants, and comports with the dictates of 18 USC § 3553(a)(6), when circumstances prevent the defendant from discovering disparities until after being sentenced, and the failure to inform prevents the defendant from entering a knowing and intelligent plea? 6. Does a violation of 18 USC § 2234 in combination with a violation of 18 USC § 3109 by officers invading a private residence for the purpose of executing a search warrant give rise to a Fourth : Amendment violation requiring application of the exclusionary : rule? ; : 7. Does a Miranda violation caused by a defendant's attorneys refusal to remain present during an FBI questioning session occurring after indictment and before the entering of a plea, when his client demands that he remain present, violate that defendant's Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel? 8. Does it violate a defendant's Eighth Amendment right to be protected from cruel and unusual punishment or deprive him of his Fifth or Fourteenth Amendment due process rights, if the sentence he received exceeds his expected lifespan, when a lesser sentence would have served justice and the dictates of 18 USC § 3553, when the defendant is elderly, infirm, and poses no danger to the community? 9. Does it violate an appellant's right to equal treatment under the law and/or an appellant's due process rights under the Fifth and/ or Fourteenth Amendment if a district court denies the appellant the right to invoke Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 6 and/or Fed. R. Crim. P. Rule 45 to strike an untimely filed government response to a motion under 28 USC § 2255, when there has been no determination of excusable neglect, and the government response was filed four days beyond the court-imposed deadline to file? pe I + A ° .