Should lower federal courts be allowed to violate Supreme Court case law and deny pro-se applicants relief for fundamental-miscarriage-of-justice claims and U.S.-constitution-violations

Questions Presented Page 1 of 2 pages } United States decisions and case law and the U.S. Court of Appeals — 5" Ckt. in conflict with other U.S. Court of Appeals, including the 2" Ckt., and concerning the 6" and 14 Amendments of the U. S. Constitution. 1. Should the lower federal courts be allowed to continue to violate the Supreme Court of the United States’ case law and deny Pro-Se applicants’ relief when their petitions have Fundamental Miscarriage of Justice claims and violations of the 6" and 14" Amendments of the U.S. Constitution claims; especially, when such claims can lead to a possibly actually innocent petitioner being illegally imprisoned? 2. Should an applicant or petitioner be barred (denied) justice and relief for Fundamental Miscarriage of Justice and U.S. Constitutional violation claims; especially, when lower federal courts and state courts do so through procedural rules and laws which are lesser and contrary to the U.S. Constitution? 3. When a petitioner needs Counsel or an Evidentiary Hearing in order to prevent a Fundamental Miscarriage of Justice, should the Court appoint Counsel or order an Evidentiary Hearing? 4. When a petitioner does not request Counsel or an Evidentiary Hearing for claims of Actual Innocence, or Fundamental Miscarriage of Justice, or a 6" or 14 Amendment of the U.S. Constitution violation, does the court not have the right and even the obligation to uphold the U.S. Constitution, to do justly, and appoint counsel or order the lower court to grant an Evidentiary Hearing and/or other relief or assistance to ensure fundamental justice and to uphold the U.S. Constitution? 5. Does the Supreme Court of the United States’ own procedural rules prevent justice and deny U. S. Constitutional rights, by procedurally time barring the Supreme Court of the United States clerk from accepting and filing “Petition for Writ of Certiorari” or other Motions, etc.; especially, pro se indigent applicants with claims of Fundamental Miscarriage of Justice and U.S. Constitutional violations; particularly, when wrongful imprisonment may have possibly resulted for an actually innocent person? 6. Is the S™ Ckt. U.S. Court of Appeals in conflict with the 2! Ckt. U.S. Court of Appeals’ decision in U.S. vs Rosillo, 853F.2d 1062, 1066-6f (1988) because the Trial court did not make an “onrecord” account of medications before entering a guilty plea and the 5" ckt. has not reversed this error? ( Questions Presented Page 2 of 2 pages ) agreement after the defendant signs it, by simply making an “on-record” account of doing so; especially, by illegally changing the defendant’s plea to “guilty”? 8. Should the trial court be allowed to enter an “Uncognizable Plea” as “Guilty”? 9. Will a Fundamental Miscarriage of Justice result in failure to entertain claims (Schlup v. Delo), when the petitioner is denied the “necessity” of a lawyer (Evitts v. Lucey ~ the Supreme Court of the United States) to prepare and present claims of Ineffective Assistance of Counsel on Appeal.? : 10. Does the “necessity” of a lawyer apply to Pro Se applicants with possible grounds for a “Petition for Writ of Certiorari” (such as violations of the 6" and 14°" Amendments of the U.S. , Constitution, U.S. Court of Appeals conflicts with the Supreme Court of the United States, or Fundamental Miscarriage of Justice claims)? ; 11. Did this petitioner suffer issues from “Exparte Garcia” (Criminal Court of Appeals of Texas — 2016)? 12. Should the “Rules of the the Supreme Court of the United States” yield for the fulfillment of “Constitutional Guarantees” in light of (Washington v. Texas, the Supreme Court of the United States) and (Whitmore v. State) or to prevent a “Fundamental Miscarriage of Justice”?