Whether the District Court had jurisdiction

QUESTIONS PRESENTED e Whether the District Court had jurisdiction where Petitioner was indicted for acts which do not constitute a criminal offense? _@ Whether Petitioner’s colorable claim of actual innocence survives the restrictions imposed by the Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) on second or successive petitions pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and is entitled to be adjudicated on its merits? e Whether Petitioner is suffering ongoing Brady v. Maryland and Kyles v. Whitley violations, where “GX7” was never produced in discovery, it was extensively used during trial but never provided to Petitioner and where the DEA has now declared that it is unable to be located? e¢ Whether Petitioner is suffering an ongoing Due Process violation, where “GX7” was never produced in discovery, it was never provided to Petitioner and where the DEA has now declared that it is unable to be located? ¢ Whether a fraud has been perpetrated upon the habeas court by agents of the federal government? e Whether Petitioner’s constitutional right to a one-time-only opportunity for federal habeas relief was wrongly denied due to the government having perpetrated a fraud upon the habeas court? 2 e Whether there is a defect in the integrity of Petitioner’s habeas proceedings, where “GX7” is now non-existent but the District Court’s denial of Petitioner’s one-time-only § 2255 erroneously relied upon the perjured testimony of DEA Special Agent David Howard Shelton regarding the purported contents of “GX7”? e Whether there is a defect in the integrity of Petitioner’s habeas proceedings, where the District Court’s denial of Petitioner’s onetime-only § 2255 erroneously relied upon the deliberate perjured testimony of cooperating witness/inmate Luis Miguel Perez? ¢ Whether Petitioner was denied Due Process, where his § 2255 was summarily denied, even though Petitioner’s wholly meritorious, affirmative defense of “entrapment by estoppel/public authority/innocent intent” was never adjudicated on its merits? e Whether Petitioner’s showing of “Actual Innocence Plus” overcomes any procedural bar and entitles Petitioner to have all of his habeas claims adjudicated on their merits? e Whether the systematic denial of a Certificate of Appealability over the past eighteen years, in spite of Petitioner’s demonstration of both actual and legal innocence, is fundamentally unfair? ¢ Whether Petitioner is entitled to habeas relief, where Petitioner has continuously demonstrated that his continued incarceration is clearly “a fundamental miscarriage of justice”? 3