Whether a federal question is raised by a claim that a state collateral review erroneously failed to find a Teague, Graham, and Grant case and Miller exception

No question identified. : | QUESTIONS PERSENTED FOR REVIEW . . 1) Is a federal question raised by a claim that a state collateral review erroneously failed to find a Teague, Graham, and Grant case and Miller exception? 2) Does miller, Graham, and Grant or the SB850 apply to Mr. Thomas, which in one court the Third circuit of Pennsylvania declared, that it did in fact apply to Mr. Thomas,” or does it categorically bar a penalty, or “instead mandates only a certain process and or group of juveniles. 3) WHEREFORE, it is in question if the lower court and or the two state courts along with the Third Circuit court and the Third Circuit court of Appeals violated and or made a mistake when deciding on Mr. Thomas’s case in a whole, was Mr. Thomas’s right to his 6" Amendment and 8" Amendment as well his 14 Amendment violated when each court denied to re-sentence _ him under the same laws that was made for all juveniles even after the Third , Circuit Courts rule that it was unconstitutional to sentence Mr. Thomas to what amounted to a life sentence, Pro Se Petitioner ask this court of the high land to look at the evident and re-evaluate the violations of Mr. Thomas Clams and they are as followed; . | : 2. . (a) On his 6° Amendment a right to counsel if the Defendant is clearly unable to help himself do to a mental condition and will rely on counsel more than a person without all the mental disability’s that Mr. Thomas had, which was in all pass court documents for the courts to identify. . 5) The 8 Amendment which is cruel and unusual punishment, for not sentencing Mr, Thomas under the SB 850 which the United States Supreme Court had ordered all states courts to do, after June 24, of 2012, as the 14" Amendment of Due Process was a violation because the court’s failed to give Thomas his rights and apply the same standard and rules, laws, that has been made for all juveniles within the United States. 6) Whether Mr. Thomas’s Sentence violated the sentencing code for juveniles or whether Mr. Thomas received a fair sentence as a juvenile without a homicide, in which his re-sentence of 40 year to life is still a Defacto Life sentence that he hopes this high court of the land will remand back down to the lower court’s to be fix’s. -3: 7) Thomas’s ask this high court of the land, that if taken his age in to account and his mental capacity at the time of the crimes and a very low IQ and not really understanding at the time what he was doing was wrong and not understanding the consequences of his actions. : 8) For Mr. Thomas the big question is if his 40 to life sentence was or isa tantamount to a life sentence to where he may never be free in his life time being that the court’s made clear that, “No court don’t have to guarantee a juvenile non-homicide a second chance in his or her life time, but this we ~ clearly be going against the 8'* Amendment of cruel and unusual punishment; As the same court that has denied Mr. Thomas which is the ; Third Circuit Court of Appeals has stated ‘before and | “quote” We hold that a sentencing judge must conduct an individualized evidentiary hearing to determine the non-incorrigible juvenile homicide offender’s life expectancy before sentencing him or her to a term-of-years sentence that runs the risk of meeting or exceeding his or her mortality. -4 Such hearings are already a familiar exercise for lower courts, which routinely measure life expectancy in various tort, contract, and employment disputes. See, e.g. Anastasio v. Schering Corp., 838 F.2d 701, 709 (3d Cir. 1988) (“A claimant's work and life expectancy are pertinent , factors in calculating {887 F.d 150} front pay, Critically, in addition to actuarial tables, lower courts should consider any evidence made available by the parties that bear on the offender’s mortality, such as medical . examinations, medical records, family medical history, and pertinent expert . testimony. Our foregoing constitutional concerns are dispelled by consideration of such