Whether the principles of due process are offended

QUESTIONS FOR REVIEW , "1, WHETHER THE PRINCIPLES OF DUE PROCESS ARE OFFENDED BY THE LOWER COURTS’ APPLICATION OF AN INCORRECT LEGAL STANDARD IN ASSESSING THE PETITIONER’S ACTUAL INNOCENCE CLAIM—AS ENUNCIATED BY MCQUIGGIN V. PERKINS, 133 8. CT. 1924 (2013); MURRAY V. CARRIER, 477 U.S. 478 (1986), SCHLUP V. DELO, 513 U.S. 298 (1995); AND BOUSLEY V. UNITED , STATES, 523 US. 614 (1998)}—-WHERE THE DECISION CONFLICTS WITH FEDERAL LAWS ON FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES AND FEDERAL LAW? 2. WHETHER UNDER THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE, A MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE OCCURS . WHEN THE PETITIONER IS CONVICTED FOR A NON-EXISTENT OFFENSE OR AN OFFENSE NOT KNOWN TO THE LAW BUT THE COURT FAILS TO ADDRESS THE CLAIM? 3. WHETHER, UNDER THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE, A MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE OCCURS AFTER THE DISTRICT COURT RULES THAT THE . PETTIONER’S ACTUAL INNOCENCE CLAIM HAD NEVER BEEN ADDRESSED ON THE MERITS, BUT THEN DENIES THE PETITION AS AN ATTEMPT TO RE-LITIGATE CONVICTIONS AND/OR AS AN UNAUTHORIZE ATTEMPT TO USE THE WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS AS A VEHICLE, WHICH EXPRESSLY CONFLICTS WITH DECISIONS OF THIS COURT AND ITS OWN PRECEDENTS IN UNITED STATES V. MORGAN, 346 U.S. 502 (1954) , AND UNITED STATES V. MILLS, 221 F. 3d 1201 (11% CIR. 2000)? J CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS. Petitioner, Bruce Simmons, certifies that the following list of persons have an interest in the outcome of this appeal, and that all, save for the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, are from the Southern District of Florida. 1. The United States Court of Appeals for Eleventh Circuit. 2. The Honorable Ursula Ungaro (U.S. Dist. Court Judge). 3. The Honorable William J. Zloch (U.S. Dist. Court Judge and Trial Judge). 4. The Honorable Cecilia M. Altonaga (U.S. Dist. Court Judge). 5. The Honorable Patrick A. White (Magistrate Judge). 6. The Honorable Lisette Reid (Magistrate Judge) 7. United States Attorney, Ariana F. Orshan. 8. Mr. Bruce Simmons (Petitioner) Pro se. | ii