Does a petitioner have a statutory due process right to post-verdict bail and to be treated as a defendant being sentenced for the first time when his sentence has been vacated, remanded, and set for resentencing?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW (1) DOES A PETITIONER, AFTER BEING FOUND GUILTY BY A JURY, HAVE A STATUTORY DUE PROCESS RIGHT TO POST-VERDICT BAIL, AND TO BE TREATED AS A DEFENDANT BEING SENTENCED FOR THE FIRST TIME, WHEN HIS SENTENCE HAS BEEN VACATED, REMANDED, AND SET FOR RESENTENCING, PURSUANT TO THE BAIL REFORM ACT OF 1984? (2) DOES A COURT OF APPEALS VIOLATE A PETITIONER'S RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS, BY REFUSING TO ADHERE TO CIRCUIT PRECEDENT (DOCTRINE OF STARE DECISIS), AND ALLOW AN UNAUTHORIZED STAFF MEMBER TO DENY THE PETITIONER'S MOTION TWICE? -1d L } , , ; JURISDICTION The District Court had jurisdiction over this matter under 18 U.S.C. § 3231 (offense against the United States). : The Court of Appeals filed its judgment on September 18, 2018. It denied rehearing on September 25, 2018. It denied recalling the mandate on October 25, 2018, and the reconsideration for ; said motion on November 6, 2018. o co THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT oa , , INVOLVED IN THIS CASE ; The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution: , . No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of ; : war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice in jeopardy of life or limb; nor be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, . nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due nos process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. : : ‘SUPREME COURT RULE 22 (3) AND 36 3(a) This Court (Justice) has authority to grant bail to the Petitioner. Rule 22 permits an "application" to be "addressed to the Justice allotted to the Circuit from which the case . arises." id. . ; . -2= Rule 36 holds "[P]ending review of a decision failing or refusing to release a prisoner ... may be endorsed on personal recognizance or bail ..." |. . SUMMARY OF THE PROCEEDINGS ‘ On June 13, 2013, a grand jury charged Mr. Jenkins (and others) with Conspiracy To Distribute Cocaine in violation of , 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 (a) (1), 841 (b) (1) (A) (ii), and 846, and Possession With the Intent to Distribute Cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. . g 841(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. . A three-day jury trial concluded on March 18, 2015 and Jenkins was found guilty of Possession With the Intent to Distribute Cocaine. The Court declared a mistrial on the . Conspiracy Count and dismissed it. : The District Court sentenced Jenkins to 27 months’ . ; imprisonment, and a term of 3 years' supervised release. The , Court ordered Jenkins' sentence to run consecutive to:his 308 month sentence for kidnapping and using or carrying a firearm. (See, United States v. Jenkins, 12-cr-30239-DRH; :United States v. Jenkins, 849 F.3d 390 (7th Cir. 2017). The Petitioner's sentence and conviction was affirmed by the Appellate Court on March 13, 2017. (United States v. Jenkins, 18-cv-610-DRH) (Doc. 1). On March 30, 2018, Jenkins filed a motion seeking to be released on bail pending review of his 2255 petition. (Doc. 6). This motion was denied on April 12, 2018. (Doc. 7). , -3: 1 1 , The Petitioner filed a timely appeal. On August 31, 2018, a three judge panel denied his motion for release pending review of his habeas petition. On September 17, 2018, the Circuit Court denied the tv ust.cre Petitioner's motion for rehearing, with suggestion for rehearing en banc. , A mandate in the above-referenced case was issued on ‘ September 25, 2018. . On October 19, 2018, the Petitioner filed a Motion to Recall the Mandate. On October 25, 2018, that:motion was denied. (by unauthorized staff). . On November 5, 2018, the Petitioner filed an objection to the denial of his motion to recall the mandate, by an unauthorized staff member. On November 6, 2018, that motion was denied by the same unauthorized staff member. ; The Government did not parti