Parsuant to U.S. Sup. C. ruke 1H. 1(a). In 2o08, Pefitioner was convictedf ofa'misdemeanor' D.U.I.(V.C.823152). This was elevated to a felory ander P.C. 8191.5(0). A 2007, Conviction under RC. 8245, was 11 Strike Out, petifioner, 25yrt. to lik. used to ) War this egal botroin? Doule ismn). Due Process HriAmend? Does K.C. 5 23550.5/), violate i) it only requices (year and 1,0u dolar fine) ii) 10 year woshout perid, a.). it the's excessive under Three Strike fau/f] Under DuePrcess by not exercising teir Did the State violate discrefion to strike a 2oyear old prior under Stote law? The Preamble" incorporoted in Ist 6f180 sa0p it not requice Third Strike to be violent under P.C. 8667.5(0) If Pisp 184, require's a third strike to be viclent. Isit. not Common Knoudedqe, tht if both 4 (( Statutes the porpose of the other no harm doe to pern r popect) be lod to be out by Three Hrike Laws). Is it crvel. and unvsua then a possible Nyear sentence of mshst os sut In last decabe no Californiag case law opinions this case) Proposition 184 (1994) why is the Original Preamble of missing 11 or not attached) Can 2Oyear old prior (Pe.C. 3 /91.5)? )Dos the coof 6it and (an.C110.)been Cenedfelo moter NOTE: Pefifiner sentenced under 667 , comnited a misdemeanor. AaTnt so iychae ; with] a prior conviction. "treated differently,ais other people Is Petifioner being similarly sitafed Is the sentence proportiande and laut uniformed

Whether the petitioner's conviction for a misdemeanor violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) should be vacated due to the unconstitutionality of the statute as applied