Whether a misdemeanor vs. felony distinction is an extraordinary circumstance under Rule 60(b)(6)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED ° 1. WHETHER REASONABLE JURIST COULD FIND IT DEBATABLE THAT . THERES AN EXTAORDINARY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A MISDEMEANOR VS. A ; FELONY, AND WHETHER A PERSON WHO SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUBJECTED TO A MISDEMEANOR THAT CARRIES NO PRISON TIME VS. A FELONY THAT CARRIES 20 YEARS IN PRISON IS AN EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCE THAT CONCERNS RULE 60 (b) (6)? 2. DOES AN EXCEPTION TO BECK V. ALABAMA (1980) AND KEEBLE V. U.S (1973), EXTEND TO A NON CAPITAL OFFENSE AS A MATTER OF THE DUE PROCESS) CLAUSE OF THE 5™ AND 14™ AMENDMENTS, WHERE THE STATE’S EVIDENCE _ SUPPORTS A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE, WHICH IS A MISDEMEANOR VS.A FELONY? 3. DOES THE RULING IN MURRAY V. CARRIER AND DRETKE V. HALEY EXTEND TO A FAILURE TO INSTRUCT ON MISDEMEANOR STATUTE, WHERE JURY COULD HAVE DETERMINED ACTUAL INNOCENCE OF FELONY STATUTE HAD NOT BEEN FOR TRIAL COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO REQUEST IT, AND DIRECT APPEALS COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO RAISE IT? 4. WHETHER DIRECT APPEAL COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO RAISE METORIOUS CLAIM SHALL AUTOMATICALLY BE CONSIDERED A PROCEDURAL DEFAULT FOR PURPOSES OF FEDERAL REVIEW UNDER COLEMANN V. THOMPSON (1991), WHERE CLAIM HAS NEVER BEEN HEARD ON THE MERITS IN ANY COURT AND JURY COULD HAVE DETERMINED ACTUAL INNOCENCE OF SUBSTANTIVE STATUTE? _TABLE oF Cowtewts — Page OPINIDNS BELoLL) Tucisdictiaw Constitutional aud Statutary Pravisiaws tuvalved___ Statement pr the. Case. a Reasans Far Granting the writ YN Trial tTuddes stakement iw an earlier Petition statin’ that tclal attarney < Performance Was outside the wide range of Caretence exected af cauusel iv a Criminal cose —__ 8/6 CONCLusl ON “INDEX TO APPENDICES . APPeudix (A) Decision af lath cicult ApPeals Gaurt+——_2 RPendix (B) Decisian of LS Disttict Court 14 Mendix(A Decision of Us, District court — MPPeowd xD) Order oF State Trial Couct (stating that trial Caunsel Was outside. the. wide. Canse. oF CamPret ence exrected AF Counr<el iW a crioninal CaSs€), ees TARLE oF AUTHORITIES Constitution Federal: Ue. Const Amend, 6 4), AAI US. Comet Amend. YAY Rule Federal: @ Rwle bo(W (2) !* S18 State statute $ Title al 0.S, section jg] stig 210.5, Section 1433 —_ 4 4(A) Fedetal Cases Beck vAlabanias 447 U.S. 25100 S.ct 382.65 L.ed.ad. 39 (/7%)_8 Brow. Allen, 244 us, 443, 73 Sct. 3°, 441, 17 Lied 469 (1953)__ 4/8) BuclLv. Davis:137 sch 759,197 Led ad. b (got Calemawn V, ThomPSav, Sal. lhS.132S.ct as4¢ s/s LEdiad. 640 (1999 Date vDavillasid at 137 Sct aoe’ (dol) DeetKe v Hal e754) Us. 386,184 Sict. 1847, 189 Liéd.ad, 65% (200%) | Evitts v.Luce%ios S.ct at 230/985) 449, // Franky. Manaum 237 US, 30%) 3461 3S Sich, 5835594, 59 Lied 969 (1915)_4(8) (sowzalev. Crosby, $45 US, 35.195 Sct. 264/ (Qoo9_ es Helland vi Florida: S60 US: 30 Se ct. A541 2S 3,177 Lied. ad, (ao/o)_Il Keeble Vi U.S 205.492 504.1992, 36 Liéd.ad.84y (1973)___@ Liljeberdv.Health serv. Cart, 447-263 » /08 5.04194, 00 Liéd.ad.955 (/980II Modles ve Thomas: 45 Us. ab6 132 Sick, 410.1181 Led.ad 907 (201Q\__9 MartiwezvuRYaw 1546 US. ak 10 132 S.ct. 1309 (asin) Murrey Vi Cartier. 477 Us. 4 78,106 S.ct 263% 9) Léd.ad 3970/9%_35,U10 Strickland Vv. Wash! stow eb US,66%, 696,109 Sct 2652.80 Liéd.ad 674 (i99Q)_ Tevinn V. Thalety 564. US.413.135 Sct IQUh (25 Liéd. ad. 104 (2613) 1d I c.toriakt A. Miller aud M.Kaue, Federal Practice and Procedure Section 2357 (2d. ed, aala) g STATE CASES 2 . MterbertY ViState 73) Rad 420,422 aK. coAre (198d) 7 Ballard v.istate, 31 Rad 390 OK.cOAPR 20 (asai)__ 1 Daws<aw Vi state, 647 Pad 447,449 OK.Cr APP (1992 4 Dixsan v. stake italia SUS Pad 1262 ot 1265 (1976) K arilaity v. State 359 Pad sal.saz AK.cr APR yo(1993) Y Raterts v. state 29P 3d 582 OK.cr APR (Qao)_ il OPINION(S) BELOW a The opinion of the United States 10" circuit court of appeals appears at