what-constitutes-a-fundamentally-just-resentencing-under-28-usc-2255

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED This case press imp okdnat Natlon wide issu8s CONCERNING what conlstiWtes A Fundamentally “ust” iweancepatfon undg® 28 U.S.C. § 2455. The question, of what covst tutes “Fundamental Faianless” has gon uvAdsuleséd since the BnACtMent oF § 2355. This petition REPRESENTS Ax! oppoRtuNity For thé SupREME Court to provide abRight line thatdetines the meaning of A Faia taial” and proceéding uNdér-thé law. © Did Congpess s&6k to deprive A pERson of Hie ight to “Dut Paocess of law” +o phove “actual Innocence” pursuant fo 38 U.S.C. § 3459 COCA), lu lightof this e-ount's Ruling in MCQuiGEiN V. PERKINS, 132 S:Ct-194H (A018) ° @ Did Conapéss tutend For the lower courts to violate A patitfonen eset Ameudment “Dus PRocess” Rights by ovealooking the Pact that petitfoven 5 assentéd A ColonAble claim coguizable For peliel undea SECTION § 4aSSCa)! G Did Congress impeamissi bly delegate its law! Making Authority, tothe u,s.Distalet Courts, to determine For Themselves what “Eutrapmsnt” MEANS under thé IAW iN Hoht of this courts auling ia ROVIARO V.UNited SHAVES, 353 U.S. 53 (1986) ? @ Did Congress gpautt the lowee courts with the juetsdicdow to'dvernult” ANA deteomine Por-themsélves, which Al Feed plea conyiedtons qualified Fon EwhACémentt purposes pursuant 91 Us5.C.§ 851 ANd this Courts Ruling in SHEPARD v. UNITED STATES, B44 U.S. 13 (2005) ? @ Did Congress tattend For acre QB accused of a violatfon! of al U.S.C. ; 334,08 denied the“ llective Assistance oF counsel” at a carteal stage of she felal pro ceéding » Forcing theaccosed to represent MMM theia self in ight of this Court's RULING IN STRICKLAND V. WASHINGTON, 466 U.S. 668 (1934) and UNITED STATES V. CRONIC, HL6 US. 648 (1484) ? ‘eres (i) |