Whether the Fourth Circuit appellate court erred in dismissing Pepke's motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 which included an unconstitutionality challenge that the court never addressed

ESTION) PRESENTED . ah Prd The Eastern, Prstriet “A hy Caro Jing WA N SUmMMANIG AfsMissing PepkeS motion wider LS VSL. GI1ke& hich eludef wn unco nal tational ty, Challenge He comt never adivedred j _ a, DA fhe Fourth Circurt -appelote couyt er in Clatmén Jurisdiction ore The appee| | ot a district Ihet order that was not Anal “A 3, Did the Fourth Chreu't appellate court erin not Fe rely . Cati¥icdte of Appedlat Wie 4. Would Pepke’s motion under PIRES, rather Than orin additton to certtori, more’ justly. b € served by acce ptance fo tNs Court aS 4. petitfan tor habecs Cor plus with origina J unisAichton or~ transfer to he Exstem District of Virginia unter £224} 2 |