Whether the appellate court abused its discretion in mischaracterizing the trial court record and relying on erroneous facts

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW , In United States v. Olano, this Court held that, under the fourth 3 , || Prong of plain error review, “[t]he Court of Appeals should correct a plain 5 ||forfeited error affecting substantial rights if the error ‘seriously affect[s] 6 ll the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” 507 U.S. 725, 736 (1993). To meet that standard, is it necessary, as the Fifth g || Cireuit Court of Appeals required, that the error be one that “would shock 10 || the conscience of the common man, serve as a powerful indictment against 1 our system of justice, or seriously call into question the competence or _ integrity of the district judge?” In this case it is the Appellate court as 14 || well that comes into question, citing cases that argues against itself. 15 This is a case of first impression that not only raises an important, * unique, and interesting question affecting not only the integrity of our . judicial system, but also implicates the Due Process provisions of the Fifth 19 ||and Fourteenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution. 20 Questions: . 1. Ina standard of review as used by appellate courts, to review | 23 || discretionary decisions of lower trial courts, the appellate courts will find 24 || that the trial court abused its discretion if the decision was the result of a . mischaracterization of the trial court record, was made in plain error, and 7 ||the erroneous mischaracterized facts are then relied upon in its findings 28 |l and conclusions. However, what is the abuse of discretion standard PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI i 1 || used for review, in a case where the appellate court itself, upon reviewing 2 a trial court’s record, picks out an incorrect material fact, involving an important triggering date in the trial court’s record, a date that was never 5 ||raised or briefed on appeal, then erroneously places this out of order 6 |l triggering date in and at a point in the record six (6) months later, totally ignoring upon advisement, the true triggering date, and then, in reliance g || upon this incorrect triggering date, mistakenly imputes the incorrect 10 || triggering date into its findings and conclusions, thereby creating an error 1 of such a nature, that it impacts every aspect of the case, and to leave it _ uncorrected would result in damage to the integrity, reputation, and 14 || fairness of the judicial process? 15 2. What is the abuse of discretion standard used for review, where ve the appellate court ignores its own well-established directions and 17 18 guidelines regarding rules of professional conduct, and where a district 19 || court judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned where the trial 20 || court deliberately ignores a wholly briefed and crucial judicial misconduc . matter, where counsels are more likely to obfuscate the court with fraud 3 ||than enlighten the court? 24 3. What is the abuse of discretion standard used for review, where 2s the appellate court ignores its own well established directions and . guidelines regarding a the trial court which rendered its decisions based 28 || upon facts that were not supported by the record, and the subsequent PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI ii 1 || decision resulted in plain error, of the kind that a reviewing court . supposedly and normally seeks to avoid? This case also shows that the reviewing Nevada appellate court, has disregarded 5 || the clearly displayed logic of its own prior decisions, its State Supreme Court’s logic, © || and the well-settled logic of this U.S. Supreme Court. In a justice system that is designed to protect against cases fraught with fraud and unjust judicial district ) g |jcourts, and where all cases that are reviewed, are reportedly done so, based upon 10 || the reviewable facts of the trial court’s record, this court’s answer to the question(s) um presented will have enormous national impact. The Nevada Supreme Court, that _ state’s court of last resort, in its