Whether the doctrine of equitable estoppel or material mutual mistake applies to reset the AEDPA statute of limitations clock

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW ** : uc . : This petition contains several claims of which most are novel and have never been brought before : ' this court or decided in courts below. These specific claims--one seeking to invalidate a federal criminal statute, two challenges to the constitutionality of a federal sentencing guidelines enhancement provision, : have not been heard in the 30-35 years since the guidelines and 18 U.S.C. 1958(a) was enacted. Further claims seek to ask whether novel challenges to whether the AEDPA statute of limitations violates the ; : suspension clause for first-time 2255 filers and whether the common law “doctrine of equitable estoppel” ; : : would reset the AEDPA clock--specific questions that the Supreme Court has not determined. All of these , questions raised below remain unanswered. : ; . : 1. When faced with a plea agreement that contained unconstitutional provisions, does the doctrine : of "equitable estoppel” or "material mutual mistake" apply to "reset the clock" and provide habeas relief from a Petitioner's unlawful conviction and sentence? Would "equitable estoppel” be one of the : : “equitable modifications” (other than tolling) hinted at but never enumerated in the Third Circuit ; ; . decisions in Miller v. New Jersey State Department of Corrections, 144 F.3d 616, 618 (3rd Cir. 1998) : and Robinson v. Johnson, 313 F.3d 128, 135-137 (3rd Cir. 2002)? : 2. Does the AEDPA statute of limitations under 28 U.S.C. 2255(f) essentially deny an inmate's right to equal access to the courts, equa! protection of law, and/or violate the Suspension Clause when it : . forecloses a merits adjudication against a first-time 2255 petitioner? ; : 3. In the face of competing holdings in the First and Sixth Circuit, and a 2020 District of Idaho decision : ‘calling the statute "ambiguous" and "badly written", is 18 U.S.C. 1958(a) facially invalid for being : : ’ and "overbroad"? . ; : 4. Inthe context of a statute invalidity examination, does the dictum in Bousley v.United States, : : 523 U.S. 614, 623 (1998) that "actual innocence" does not mean "legal insufficiency” CONFLICT with : the Third Circuit's decision in United States v. James, 928 F.3d 247 (2019) holding "legal innocence : counts as innocence" and CONFLICT with this Court's "Blackledge-Menna doctrine" and its holding : in Class v. United States, 200 L.Ed.2d 37 (2018) that an underlying constitutional infirmity in a 47 TRULINCS 69451050 THIEME, CHRISTOPHER Unit: FTD-Q-B . . statute "implicates the very power of the [Government] to prosecute” a defendant? 5. Does the use of a four-point USSG 2A1.5(b)(1) sentencing enhancement to a defendant's sentence , : for an 18 U.S.C. 1958(a) conviction constitute "impermissible double counting" if this sentencing. enhancement duplicates verbatim the “critical element" of the offense of conviction? . 6. Does this same four-point USSG 2A1.5(b)(1) sentencing enhancement when applied to the calculation . : of a guidelines offense level for other counts through "grouping" in a multi-count conviction become . a double jeopardy multiple punishment? And further, did Congress intend that grouping under USSG ; 3D1.2 and 3D1.3 be used as an "end-run" around a statutory maximum sentence through its application to other counts? ‘ : 7. Cana sentencing court order restitution that does not meet the four specific reasons for imposing , : restitution provided by 18 U.S.C. 3663? : : : 8.. Would the failure of defense counsel to recognize or object to the aforesaid errors before, during, : . and after sentencing render deficient and prejudicial performance to render his assistance , constitutionally ineffective? Further, would his misadvice that prevented the Petitioner from taking . : an appeal he would have otherwise pursued render his assistance ineffective? : 9. Do never-before-argued "novel" claims of constitutional injury provide an equitable basis to “reset : . the clock", "in the interests of justice", for first-time AEDP