Whether the district Court and Eighth Circuit erred in determining that Mr. Johnson's 2255 motion was not effective in cases on collateral review filed pro se

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED | Whether the district Court and Ei ghth Cir, Evved uthen thes detécmine thet mu Sohucon &LS5 mMetion was not erronctive te cases on Collateral revi pplnson filed Pro $e, Met ion on Uvvet fom Hy | . e Same issue as his 2255 Motion Bpbens i! @ eohethe mr Sohuson Sentence is invalid under Hppren f Vi Meas Jersey, because wi, Toluson was Charae . On SH! CA) without 4 drug guantifs thet was neither 8 oO Alle gee in the inclict ment Nov proven te the Jury Wy. , | Sehnson Should heave # Consttion viath te be Se. tence ander the Statute thet he was in clic bead on . | © Tag te tive of Counsel, MW, Sdhusen Counsel } ’ &Tjo d+; : 48 have Surclge. Richard “Koph penal after bring ash 16, . , Sel from Mi Sohnson Case atter fa) ts or Tecan | see Deb he ings he Sard, , pee Ot 240 and DCN abl Sent sas ev soknson Counsel not Piling Ons -Post | ) ening. fac. ov. set out in 358A CO) ush we sent Counse/ 24. pages of positive thy tn mv. Dohngon . while in prison Poste DS ve Oak © whether Counsel y . | on. powder V Crack hs indfective by net Filing a mofien Ms, Stahones fas ‘Spovits; Motion that vous byle at " ing Nearing, te Preserve Ginr ol ! tshich Might be decided +Hyow gh A Chane on spe | fondlfors minimums ot_seatencing guidelines related ; | is eatment_of_Crack for_seutencing, fur poses, _ whether the Supreme Court should appa. Councel & ul € Cour S ould appomt_. mi shnsen the Appointed LOel of net file toy ® whet) ] , ev Al USC PH CHEN CCI Is _@ Coy e u 1S -ALOV: -eved Offense “Uncler The First Step Bet of Qosh __