Do lower courts have an inherent duty to properly apply doctrine of this Supreme Court that confirms the applicability of the Statute of Limitations - as codified by 28 U.S.C. 2462 - to relief sought in civil actions by the Securities and Exchange Commission?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED The following questions are presented for the Court’s review: 1. Do lower courts have an inherent duty to properly apply doctrine of this Supreme Court that confirms the applicability of the Statute of Limitations as codified by 28 U.S.C. 2462 to relief sought in civil actions by the : a Securities and Exchange Commission? ; 2. Can Summary Judgement be granted to a Plaintiff pursuant to collateral estoppel from a defendant’s guilty plea and conviction in a parallel, and inextricably intertwined criminal proceeding, if the plea and conviction are invalid and under collateral attack due to structural errors that occurred at inception of the proceeding and which mandate automatic reversal ab initio? 3. Can lower courts arbitrarily ignore the mandate of this Court — most recently reaffirmed in Tolan v. Cotton, 572 US, 134 S. Ct., 188 L Ed 2d 895, 2014 US LEXIS 3112 which requires that “in ruling on a motion for summary judgment, ‘the evidence of the non-movant is to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor” ~ particularly when the evidence clearly supports the non-movant’s position? | i REFERENCED CASES AT THE DISTRICT AND APPELLATE LEVELS AND LIST OF KEY PARTIES The decision pertaining to this Petition is an Affirmation of the Grant of the _ Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (“MSJ”), in a case brought against me by a Court-Appointed Receiver (the “Plaintiff” or “Receiver”) in a parallel and inextricably intertwined case filed against me in the District Court for the District of Connecticut by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). , The applicable lower court cases are the following: Carney v. Illarramendi et al. — United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Docket No. 18-1334 (the “Circuit Court Proceeding”). District Court for the District of Connecticut (J udge Stephan R. Underhill) in the case of Carney v. Illarramendi et al, — Case No. 3:12-cv-00165-SRU (the “District Court Case”) In addition to the proceedings listed above, the Court should take notice of the following inextricably intertwined Civil Case, Criminal Matter and Habeas Proceedings as they are directly related to the above cases: SEC v. Illarramendi et al. — Case No. 3:1 1-cv-00078-JBA in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (the “SEC Case”). US. v. Illarramendi — Case Docket No. 3:11-cr-00041 (SRU) in the District Court for the District of Connecticut (the “Criminal Matter’). ii US. v. Illarramendi — Case Docket No. 3:16-cv-01853 (SRU) — Proceeding related to the Criminal Matter to Vacate the Judgement of Conviction under 28 U.S.C, 2255 due to the Violation of my Constitutional Rights (the “Habeas Petition”). List of Key Parties Francisco Ilarramendi — Pro Se Defendant, Appellant and Petitioner at the various. corresponding court levels. Receiver, (the “Plaintiff” or the “Receiver”): Includes Mr. John Carney, Plaintiff in the District Court Case and Court-appointed Receiver in the SEC Case, as well as members of his team. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or the “Commission”) — Plaintiff in the SEC Case. ; Petroleos de Venezuela, S.A. (“PDVSA”) — Oil Company, owned 100% by the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (“Venezuela”). As the entity is fully owned and financially consolidated with Venezuela and its officials act in concert with Venezuela’s Government Officials, the term is taken to mean either/or, or both together. . iv .