Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit failed to undertake the notice-and-warning requirement of a pro se filing as a 2255 motion as mandated by this Court's precedent

No question identified. : Ques TIONS) PRESENTED _ 1 DID THE US. COURT GF APPEALS FOR THE FLETH CIRCUIT FAILED _ FO_UNDERTAKE THE NOTICEAND-WHRNIWG RE@UICEMENT OFA PRO SE FLW AS A £9955 MOTION NWUDATED BY THIS COURT'S _ od. “DD_THE U.S. COuRTAOF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT IMPRORERIY SIDESTEPPED THE DISTRICT COURT'S SUA SPONTE INDICATIVE RULING ORDER ACKNOWLEDAING TS MISTAKE AND WILLIWONESS TO CORRECT NTS ERROR BY PANNING LIOSERVICE TO TRE NOTICE-AND-WARNIN (2 REQUIRENNENT MANDATED BY THIS COURT'S PRECEDENT AN . __SUSTUENWG_ [15 WIL OFA COA BASED ON 1% NISUNDERSTIAND: \NQ_OF PETITIANERS ACTUAL COURT SUPERVISION ANID ee UN TIMELINES 5 ? _ 3. NOES A DIOMISSAL OF A $9959 MOTION AS SUCCESEWE _ REQUIEES A CERTIEWATE OF APPEALABILITY UNDER §2952) | FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS HEA) THE DEMISSAL WAS Fae tahoe sugispiertion® DOES THE ONE-YEAR REQUIREMENT TO FILE A $9955 MOTION. PR PLIES TO_A LATER $9955 MOTION THAT WG FILED ARTERWARDS QUETO THE DISTRICT COURTS FAILURE TO GIVE CASTRO WARNINGS, | WHEN TL RECHARACTERIZED THE WITAL FILING TRAT WAS FILED PEFORE THE ONE YAR REQUIREMENT EXPIRED 2 a LUST OF PARTIES SAVIER ROMS CISNEROS AUAN OABRIEL CISNEROS BRAOT3 O74 SOL COUNTY ROAD 90) _ «FALE Ure IAS, TEXAS 778595 UNITED STATES DE AMERICA | ee UNITED STATES ATTORNEY S OFFICE SOUTHERN DGTRICT OF TEXA U.S. COURTHOUSE. 6000 _£. HARRISON STREET, SUITE 30\ BROWNSVILLE, TEXAS T3520 HSOUCTOR GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES ROOM SOlG DCQARIMENT OF JUSTICE : G05 (512) 950 PENNSYLVANIA AVE. NLW, WASHINGTON, D.C. 30530-0601 \ (ti) (ABLE OF CONTENTS _ OPINONS BELOW rd SURISDICTION. et CONSTITUTIONAL AND oR (SIONS INVOLWEDSTATENENT OF THE CASE -3 REASONS FOR GRANTWG THE WRIT -\] — CONCLUSION | INDEX oF APPENDICES | ARDENDIX A 3/17/18 OPiNiaN dE COURT OF APPEALS DENYWIG COA