Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals lacked jurisdiction to review the district court's orders staying a habeas corpus petition

No question identified. : ‘a STATEMENT OF THE QUEST! ONS i. Whether or not the Auguet 28, 207%, opinien of the 4.9. Court of Appeals for the {1S Grevit, Frading that <b lacked junsdietien to review fhe May 4, 201g, and Aprif 1, 2014, ordery of the U.S. Disteet Court for the Southern Digtrief of Geergia ind eP ini tely Staying Schuradlers 2 2254 Case , _ 88 contrary to Tis Courthiheldeng in Motes H, Cone Mem 1 Hospital Mereuy "Constr Corp,, 460 US, 1 (1983)? 2. Whether on not the Auguet 28 2019, opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals Pen the HW Cirenit, Finding that the Mey 4, 2008, 2nd April, 204%, ordars of the US. District Coury Far the SouThern Dig trick oF Geary. indeFes itely staying Schwiadlers $2254 case vere not a precedent -Settirs error af excep tenal raportance jn interpretins the req ucremants For “excusing a geht ionerk Failure bo exhaust. state cemedies “wher re hay Senn shows that the State of Georg iat procedure For rey iain prstcome ction ahafleayes bad been ina de quate in Sghwradler$ case, ag shown by That challenge having langutshed witha the Site Coucts Por over 1S years uithent Peslat ds ? 3, Whether or not the August 28 2017, optnren of the Y4.$.Coyrt of Ap prale for The UE Creat, Panels ay that The May 4, Lot and Apel, ; 2014, orders of the US. District Court For the Southern Destret of Georg 14 mn delrately staying Sohwindlers § 2254 ease werg not sabseat te revidw, was @ precedent sett say error of exegp Heral 1m portaace in vaterpretiny the requirements for eetabhshing venue in F224 casey mm wk oF the son k{ict betwees the polizy of the United States courts within The State af Georgia ” ty trangher $2254 actrdas to the district wrethi, whieh a Convetian otcusred, gad —the clear statement of reguared vee sot by Congress within the , statute, as well aS considerations oF egual protectsen, due process, ond : varseug Prove svons of law and equity ? | (i) . . CERTIFICATE OF INTERGITED PERSONS And PARM Ey 1 BeHten, Hen. Timothy C.= US. Distrrat Judge; Mocthem District of Georgia. 2. Baverman, Hon, Alan T.US. Magrttrate Judge; Auetham District af Georgia, 3, Branch, Hon, « US. Circuit Judge; 10 Corducb, . ; 4, Beauvais Steven = Hate Stand-by Ape tate Crgngel, . : 5, Hateher, Shay Warde; Respandent / Appellee 6. Karph, No, Methacl ~ State Trial Judge; Chathin County Superiir Court T, Marts, Hon “KS, Crest Mudge: U% Circ, 8. MCommathy Gregory = State Proseeuter; Chatkin Coast, Dibtriah Atteracys Of es, q. Moore Hon, Wihame US. Distret Judge; Sau then Disteret of George lo. Ray, Hen, Christy phec Us. Magistrate dudg a ; Southern Diskeret af Geor; be i, Rosenbaum, Hea, — US. Chreudy rodge . UI Orcutt . . 12, Schindler, Frank Petitene/ Appa Dante . \3, Smith | fauly Counsel for Respor dest /Apelioe ; Georg, Department of Law IW, Turner, He. Debra k, State Nabeys Corpus As dee: Cwianelf County Suy eric Goh (i) , TABLE GF ConTeurs Statement of the Web 8A8 cece tees ence aay y eee een tem en oe CH CertPicate of Interested Persons and POF bec op cece ccece vec pennc eee _. (ii) Table of Content neces cnenn ance re nentame esa dep ane cg ante nanae iii) List of Proceedsags and Cotatinas of Dees jutas Below cecnecencsee acae-w(iv) Statement of Junsdichia’, anna nah Renee (eaen Hennes neeen aeeenne Xv) Const Yu tions) Provisions and Fable of Authorbes, 200 ee (vi) Certibcate of Compliance ith Supreme Covet Rule 33. Uracgneneco--vis) Prison Mailbox Rule CartePrewts of Malling nooo cece eon ese (viii)