Whether the district court had proper subject matter jurisdiction in light of United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625 (2002), Bailey v. United States, 516 U.S. 137 (1995), and Jones v. United States, 529 U.S. 848 (2000)

No question identified. : Question Cs) Resested L. CO. \Wroaer respecthill requests she Supreme CoGT8 Supervision oF monunitcaed Cire Couats reqarciog . Statatory \wherpreterion anc oppliatren oF 28 Osc 2255) — Senings Clause Ke 28 Use 2a4| wrt o& hebeas Corpus ve egarcing fundamental errors aad relrooctiwe stetatory \nheraretive \auds and codketheRelbioners Case oncets this Couet’s requirements. a. Rik konee respecthll requests Wve Supreme Gover Supenision end \oouke a (GRVGran remend ecete) Aorhe dishiar Goran the questen oF WhetheSubject matte Judsdichen Wes Proper \n \alst oF Uneted Stetes wv. Cotten, 535 US 25 (2co3) 5 Beiley V. Usirked States, Sil US 134 Cres). lores v. United . States, 5aq Us 848 (2000), based onthe records of tA ei. ap)