Whether the district court and the appeal court departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings

QUESTIONS PRESENTED I. Whether the district court and the appeal court departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings throughout this case including when the court relied on United States v. Susi, 2007 WL 2757748 (W.D. N.C. Sept. 21, 2007) as the basis to incarcerate Dr. Adams pre-trial for over four years with no end in sight in retaliation for Dr. Adams exercising his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent and also to deny Dr. Adams’s § 2255 motion. The district court, the appeal court, and defense counsel failed to recognize that the defendant in Susi was given immunity when Susi was ordered to create a pre-trial accounting in a separate order and therefore Susi’s Fifth Amendment rights were not violated. Unlike Susi, there is no second order from the district court protecting Dr. Adams from prosecution. The four plus years of pre-trial incarceration for civil contempt with no end in insight along with many other constitutional violations made Dr. Adams’s signature on the 20% plea agreement offer, involuntary, and the product of ineffective assistance of counsel. I would like to point out that not one judge on the appeal court in the fourth circuit recognized the violation of Dr. Adams’s Certiorari should be granted to exercise this Court’s supervisory powers. iii Il. Whether the district court proceeded in conformity with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 2255, when the district court made findings on controverted issues of fact without notice to the petitioner and without a hearing, when the petitioner made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Il. Whether a district court must for purpose of resolving an appeal of a §2255 motion accept the sworn material facts as stated by a §2255 movant as true when the district court denies § 2255 relief without an evidentiary hearing and without notice. iv