Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals 6th Cir. erred in affirming the District Court decision, which directly conflicts with the Appeals Court's own prior opinion in In re Adams, 302 B.R. 539 (B.A.P. 6th Cir. 2003) regarding enforceable transfer restrictions on a beneficiary's trust interest under 11 U.S.C. § 541(c)(2)

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 1) The U.S Court of Appeals 6" Cir. Affirming of District Court decision directly conflicts | with the Appeals Court’s opinion, Jn re Adams, 302 B.R.539 (B.A.P 6" Cir.2003) establishment in the same important matter with enforceable transfers restrictions as beneficiary of trust. Because the Petitioner is beneficiary of trust within the meaning of 11 US.C §541(c) (2) and the Petitioner in same important matter is a beneficiary of trusts with enforceable transfer restrictions such that he Petitioner beneficial interest in those trust shall excluded from sentencing pursuant to Title 18a 32 (c)4. 2) The Appeals Court in same important matters pursuant to In re R.W Leet Electric, Inc., : 372 B.R 372 B.R. 846 (B.A.P 6" Cir.2007) “trust funds can be identified in a substitute form the Petitioner has identified the trusts funds in mingled in substituted form as “the ; forfeited property of Deandre Forrest instead from tracking from owner to contractor to beneficiary was denied erroneously when the District Court of Appeals deny Petitioner Counsel and affirmed District Court Decision, because it is conflict with it’s own opinion 3) The decision to affirm District Court Judgement is conflict with the District Court of appeals decisions in same important matter in another Appeals Court Decision (it own appeal decision) ih pursuant to In re’ R.W Leet Electric, Inc., 372 B.R 372 B.R. 846 (B.A.P 6" Cir.2007) Cestui que trust may follow trust through any change. The Court established “ trust can be identified in substitutive form, then affirm in same important matter that the District Court decision that the does not have to obey a simple contract he obliged as fiduciary of cestui que trust Petitioner is a beneficiary of. . 2 4) Were in the same important matter pursuant to In re R.W Leet Electric, Inc., 372 B.R 372 B.R. 846 (B.A.P 6" Cir.2007), “5. the trustee shall1)collect... and close such estate... with the best interest. of parties in interest. It is well established the Petitioner is party in interest of “ the forfeited property of Deandre Forrest. Therefor the District Court of Appeals affirmation of District Court decision is in direct contradiction in same important matter of interest established in decision of another District Court of Appeals (it’s own actions) because the Appeals court accepted tender payment, but denied Petitioner Counsel is not inn best interest of Petitioner/ Party of Interest.” | = . me one . 3