Whether the Sixth Circuit erred in applying a death penalty sentencing review in a non-death penalty case

QUESTIONS FOR REVIEW * PAGE# Question # OnB; Whether the Sixth Cillcuit ellred wlen it applied a . death penalty, sentencing eltroll review, in a non death penalty case, taising an actual innocence gateway claim. And whether that manner of review violated the Suspension clause of the U.S.Constitution Article 1§ 9. 12.21 Question # Two; Whether the Sixth Cillcuit ellred by finding sufficient evidence from the States summary citing the indictment, and its own ' false interpretation speculating on hearsay testimony, and whethell that contradicts JACKSON V VIRGINIA.443 U.S. 307 (1979). , AND whether the Sixth CGillcuit ellced by finding sufficient evillence basel! on Hearsay testimony from two witnesses who the alleged voctim indicated she never spoke to in her testimony and when the witness testimony is contradicted by the alleged victims statement to Hospital social wollke# denying the act necessally to challge the offence. 22-31 Question # three; Whether the cummulative effect of multiple errocs in the Silxth Creuit C.0.A. review denied petitionel! hils right to be healld, to lledress, to due process, and whether it violated Article 1 § 9 of the U.S. Constitution, Suspending habeas col!pus. 12-39 Question # Four; Whether the Sixth circuit el'red by making it's own l'uling from the State coullt decision, then determining jurists of reason would not disagree with the distllict court on that decision , 35-36 i QUESTIONS FOR REVIEW, CONTINUED PAGE# Question # Five;Whether the Sixth Circuit properly applied procedural default from the State court's plain errol! review when the State court ignolled one of the issues, and applied it to the wrong question regarding the second pact. 33-34 Question # Slix; Whether the Sixth cillcuit ellred in applying res judicata, from the State court's ruling that barred petitioner from being healld, ruling that res judicata barred him from presenting new evidence while simultaneously holding that he was barred becouse he dilln't present new evidence. 37-38 LIST OF PARTIE AND RELATED CASES. . { ] ALL PARTIES APPEAR IN THE CAPTION OF THE CQVER PAGE. : Fetherolf V Wacden,No.20-3565, U.S.Court of Appeals foll the sixth circuit. Judgment rendered on 6-2-2020, Rehearing, 9-17-2020. Fethexolf V U.S.District court fol! the southel!n district of Ohllo eastern division. Judgment rendeced on 4-22-2020. State V Supreme Court of Ohllo, Judgment rendered on 1-21.2020. State V Third district court of Appeals, Ohllo Judgment rendered on 10-28-2019. ii State V Fetherolf. No.17-1363, Supreme Court of Ohl!o, Judgment rendered on 12-11-2017. . State V Fetherolf No.17-0774. Supreme Court of Ohio. Judgment renderel! on 2-14-2018. State V Fethellolf No.14-16-10 and 14-16-11, Thilrd district court of Appeals, Ohllo. Judgment rendered on 4-10-2017. State V Fetherolf. No.2013-CR-0207. Union county court of common pleas, Ohllo. Judgment rendered on 3-11-2016. iii TABLE OF CONTENT PAGE# Opinion Below O01 Jurisdictional Statement O1 Constitutional and Statutolly provisions 02 Statement of case and facts 02 Arguments 12 Additional reasons foll granting the writ 39 INDEX OF APPENDICES