Whether sentencing errors were corrected by appeals court on direct appeal without defense counsel, and whether there was a constitutional denial of counsel on direct appeal

QUESTIONS FOR REVIEW. | ‘ In this case, the petitioner requested an appeal from’ ; trial counsel, and counsel failed to file the notice. The petitioner filed his own notice, was granted the direct appeal and appeal counsel withdrew from appeal without informing the . , coe petitioner, with the record reflecting an. oversentencing issue. Appeals court rendered a decision without any allegation of _ reviewing the record and corrected. some sentencing errors while ~ : affirming the sentence, without counsel. : — (1) Is it structural error when sentencing errors were’ corrected by appeals court. on direct appeal without defense counsel, and a constitutional denial of counsel on direct appeal when counsel withdrew and the petitioner was not informed by ; . -appeal counsel that he was withdrawing from the direct appeal, : where the petitioner was oversentenced on the face of the record and has not been afforded any opportunity for review of this issue ? ; a ; (2) Would it be a U.S. First Amendment violation, due : process violation and a miscarriage of justice if no court : addressed the petitioner's Présentencing Investigation Report . : : and Sentencing Guidelines Scoresheet prepared by probation,. : applied to the petitioner at sentencing to establish his minimum . : and maximum mandatory guideline sentence, that supports the fact oe that he was oversentenced and denied all redress ? ; (3) Is it an unreasonable application of the U.S. Sixth ; 7 Amendment, applied. to the: States by the U.S. Fourteenth . Amendment, and U.S. Supreme Court precedent for courts to deny -. review of all Ineffective Assistance of Appeal Counsel claims ; of abondonment leading to the forfeiture of all meritous — Ineffective Assistance of Trial Counsel claims by a pro se litigant to excuse all procedural bars ?