Where the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit granted permission to file an overlength Petition for Rehearing and then denies the Petition for being overlength; is that a denial of Due Process, Equal Protection of the law, and an Abuse of the Court's discretion?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED | I. Where the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit (Eighth Circuit) granted permission to file an overlength Petition for Rehearing and then denies the Petition for being overlength; is that a denial of Due Process, Equal Protection of the law, and an Abuse of the Court’s discretion? II. Where the Eighth Circuit denied the Petition for Rehearing as overlength, after the Court already granted permission to file the Petition as overlength, should the Court have provided fair notice that it had rescinded its previous Order and allowed Bitzan a short time extension to file his Petition, but without an enlargement granted? III. Should the Martinez v. Ryan “exception” apply to ineffective Federal Habeas Counsel? In this case, new evidence was discovered during Federal Habeas proceedings that State Postconviction Counsel could have obtained, but failed to. Once Federal Habeas counsel was appointed, they failed to effectively pursue ineffective assistance of | State Postconviction counsel for failing to effectively present the ineffective trial counsel claims. They also failed to pursue the newly discovered evidence, thereby failing to | complete the record, and allowed the Habeas Court to rule on an incomplete record. IV. Should the U.S. Supreme Court reconcile a split between the Courts? Eight U.S. Courts of Appeals, and the Iowa Supreme Court, favor a cumulative review of Strickland prejudice. The Eighth Circuit and two other U.S. Courts of Appeals split with the majority and refuse a cumulative review of Strickland prejudice. In this case, the | Monona County District Court and Iowa Court of Appeals found deficient performance of trial counsel for 2 issues in each Court during State Postconviction proceedings, but | the cumulative effect of all 4 issues together was never properly considered; the Federal Courts refused to review this issue under Eighth Circuit precedent. | i | | |