Whether the district court had jurisdictional venue to accept the petitioner's plea agreement and sentence when the requirements of Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 20 were not complied with

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. The United States Supreme Court is asked to resolve a federal question of jurisdictional law, whether the district court for the Eastern District of Washington had jurisdictional venue to accept Petitioner's plea agreement, plea, and sentence Petitioner, on four counts of bank robbery that occurred and was pending in the Western District of Washington, when the mandated congressional requirements of Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 20, was not complied with to transfer venue for plea and sentence? 2. This Court is asked to resolve a federal question of statutory law, ; whether the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has entered a decision in this case, that departed from the accepted and usual course of statutory judicial proceedings, by invoking an overbroad interpretation of Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 20 procedural requirements, to dismiss Petitioner's jurisdictional venue challenge on direct appeal? 3. This Court is asked to resolve an important constitution question of procedural law, whether the district court for the Eastern District of Washington failure to colloquy Petitioner at change of plea | hearing, on waiver of right to collaterally attack sentence, violated Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 11 procedural requirements, invalidated not only the application of the "waiver", but also the validity of Petitioner's plea as being knowingly and voluntarily made? Page 2