Whether 28 USC §2244 deprives similar-situated-litigants of due-process

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW 1. Whether 28, §2244, U.S.C. deprives similar situated litigants of due process of law? 2. Whether the enforcement of 28, §2244, U.S.C., subjects similar situated litigants to cruel and unusual punishment? 3. Whether trial court violates due process by subjecting a first offender to the maximum punishment to cruel and unusual punishment, in the absence of a sentencing hearing to allow mitigating circumstances to justify the maximum sentence being imposed? 4. Whether 28, §2244, U.S.C., violates due process, when there is no right to seek further review by Motion to Rehear of Reconsideration? 5. Whether 28, §2244, U.S.C., violates due process when there is no right to an appeal from the denial of an application for permission to file a second or ; successive application for writ of habeas corpus? 6. Whether the requirement to seek permission to file a second or successive application for habeas corpus relief violates the ex post facto clause of the United States Constitution, when 28, §2244, U.S.C. did not exist in 1996 when this case originated? 7. Whether the state of Mississippi deprived the petitioner of due process, by denying the Motion to Recall its Mandate, so petitioner could seek relief under the new state rule under Rule 26.4, of Mississippi Rules of Criminal Procedure, for a sentencing hearing, which was not available in 1996, when this case originated? 2 QUESTIONS FOR REVIEW CONTINUE: 8. Whether the lower courts, State Supreme Court, District Court and U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, deprived the petitioner of access to the courts to seek relief under the New Rule of Law, under Rule 26.4 of Mississippi Rules of Criminal procedure, which allowed the litigants to have a sentencing hearing, effective in July 1, 2017? 9. Whether the state courts were bias and prejudice towards the Petitioner, in the prosecution and sentencing of Petitioner, Wrenn? 10. Whether lower courts violated due process by ordering monetary sanctions, in the absence of a show cause hearing? 3