Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals properly applied its supervisory powers to ensure the proper application of Local Rule 7.3 MOTION PRACTICE

Questions Presented Where the U.S. Court of Appeals did not properly | apply its supervisory powers to ensure that the law was | being applied properly or at all to the Middle District of | North Carolina where Local Rule 7.3 MOTION PRACTICE under paragraphs (f) and (k) says under the Law that all uncontested motions are normally granted without | further notice? Where the U.S. District Court improperly and unlawfully denied the undisputed, uncontested Hazel Atlas Motions asking the U.S. District Court to vacate all | fraudulent begotten judgments by supporting evidence | and supporting claims, which the officer of the Court’s favorable judgments was grounded on fraud, all judgments favorable to the United States of America were grounded on fraud, coercion, and deceit? | Where the U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed the . Judgment on denying all § 2255 civil case Motions which were Hazel Atlas Motions requesting vacatur of all | fraudulent begotten judgments? | Where the U.S. District Court had erred on making contradictory claims that all pending 2255 civil case | ii | | Motions were not filed in the right form and were construed as 2255 motions even though they filed directly | in the 2255 case which were Hazel Atlas motions | requesting vacatur of all fraudulent begotten judgments? | Where case law precedent in this very Courtand the © lower Courts all held that no statute or law can prevent an inherit or implied power of a Hazel Atlas Motion from | requesting relief from a Court to deter frauds being perpetuated on the Court by any sworn Officer of the Court? Where the “due process of law” clause of the U.S. Constitution, Amendment V, is being deprived and | ignored by the U.S. District Court in the Middle district of North Carolina and the supervisory Court known as the | U.S. Court of Appeals by denying uncontested Hazel Atlas motions? } iii