Did the federal judges in the 8th Cir. Fail to review newly discovered claims

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED Q) Did the RderalSudges in the Shh Ciz. Fatl fo veview muy Newly discovered Claims , that Z only discovered WETER federa| Districk Sudye Qunetl lmidlend) Eze2onvusle "nulid that 2 an nGarceratid for Febduel pur 25-99 yrs, received only 20475 GS part o£ My Plia aea When Zim Hot In prison on Hebitiucl Charges , Grd Z Am nol even in PWS POA [ f > Q) Are why quel Pokchins under the 14 fend. amd Due Process rights vintated when ¢ Ut Amendment Rishi j © 4 was avesicd and charoed with the Came of Downs While Lobsceted (62). but the Shee Charoed me with the thohor OPLnse OF Dawna while fob acated [EY which now includes "“Zabuicabon fespult", whichis nok a lesser included offense 1 and fr which £ was never admmnshed ba Ye Sudoe ? (ta phew 24 Zh Brat) D 6 4 did not have any accidenks), how then can the Shot in thar 2" rtnformahon . after L exercised ms Conshtuhonel tes. Now Charot me with a faem of Gabvicahen Assmelt”, ani) NOT ill me of the elaments . Nov admonish me of the elements 7 @ the Ske after forcing me by Plead ty Me New-lhaher tate hosmutt"Charaes .(then) ‘lowers " the Charses ty thells) tatormahus F2 DWE Chases, And Ssubmito those Charees to TOOT Fr my “Pinal Judsement of Convichon? (breach of Plea Usveomont) © when trial Coanse! fouls fo dll me © now Gree " Gaboactchan Assitult" Dene hy Chidlense ‘why" or “thw" Pre Siete Can Charse nre for A Crine << was never Charaed or avrested yr? (®D whon the Shoes AHonen Cenercl sous Z' Plead E2 pws, anhwned ty F2 DWE) W_br. MAX Sentences Ard Ye bed. Dist Judse . aroues ‘‘T" Dad fo a F* nwt enhwnced to Habitual 25-94 yrs , Loy (now) sa Hibihaal ParasePh non exishint), and recowved only20 Urs j ON Q 2 Yr. minimum? Bovh Gre ComPlelely wrong aboud my Charges? Zam jn prison on Fapwt, enhanced fy F2% DwE 2ayears — Nor in my plea deal ,F did Aut plea fo Mese Charges.