Whether the procedural protections required to challenge a conviction under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 were violated, including the right to an impartial trial and the opportunity to present mitigating evidence

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED a an aa Vd AAW Rey ty a! BE te orginal tral nile gad aerneatall baw Procedurw\ prove crion ond If the ing Hhrhonal the Neguired to chet 6) rac fand ACA) Wdligationg Shey y~ wed ug Whe System wAsh 11S haadg af my diten \b Phe ey iminya] ir) Hass tice loverinva hen KK Lun R PYO Se Appellant whs has 1 lena bec gronnd, her Apeenl in Leduc ¢ . WO 4G | YOKnl Lowes, sin) She US Chadrnuny her achaal iano Lente! » Yin tholyh it) Should AppAlant awe te remain in pri@n becawe af be be: Ww Bhi Baker AF Aton hen Ke bailed by haly ace TAU CASE, rent mitrigabny Wi denee and wiknesal” nVEsh gts Rin COSC FEAL OLILL Yoube? VININGS Prat would WV) Tort k worth ay hime and ier : . . A : bo | ty eeverl So TNKY LL CR 28 Shows Yhok cone Pellnat back bs Onne a yar Gnd Impér hal trial De cima de, aD Uy pir wld a Ye ON AVAL(\knK Ue Oroce batlure beornect Were ruby of ANS Judit cal Process? YAS TONE pun Clanaye