Did the district Court (WDNC) and the 4th Cir. Court violate petitioner's right to access a federal court & right to due process by applying the wrong procedural rules/laws to said case, by failing to take notice, as requested, of the unique and specific circumstances, as to why he filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for a writ of habeas corpus and not a § 2255 petition?

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED ) Did the. disteict Court WDiN.CAD) and the 4#C: 8. £0.40 Wolate petihoners Right te access a federal Count, & Right to due Process by applying the wRong pRocedural rulesflaws +0 said case, by Failing to take wotice, as Reguested, of the Wwigue and specific CiRcum stances, as fo why he Siled a aT usc. § 22d Petrhown foa a writ of habeas Corpus and wot a § 2asy pethow? a) Does the tnd, Congress mandate, aS set Porth po) aP USC. F ARTSY OMB) (i) & paohibet the Pethoner fom suvok ing fae jursdithoval pRovrstons of 28 WSC, § 2254 (LUA & i) () 2@)? . Ddid the State of North Cakolina, whew it farled to allege. the material averment, Matthew oliver Alfoad Getifoners Mame) jn the body of the indictuent Violate PetitroveRrs Right to indictment by a grand sury, Right to due process, & Right to be pv framed of the wature and Cause of fhe accusation against Aim ? ; A) Does this Courts holding iv Almendakez.Terres v, WS, $22 US, 224 947) Violate. (1) petitioner’ Right to due PROCESS, Right to 4 informed, Right te tkial by jury, & Right to egual protechoy? and @) tus Courts Aoledings iv Us. vs Caurkshank et al. 92 us. 54a W875)? Wilkes County vi Colek, 190 us, 506 701)? and Apptendr vi WMS. S20 US. 466 Qooo)? (i)