Whether the inferior district court and the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit prejudicially blocked the Petitioner's due-process rights due to the nature of the offense Petitioner was convicted of

ESTIONS PRESENTED . : The states that the issues being presented in this Writ are not only ones of great public interest or Constitutional importance, but they also raise the following questions for this Honorable Court to consider and provide answers that comport with the true intent, interpretation, and spirit that the Framers had envisioned and adopted: 1). What are the only crimes that the U.S. Constitution had specifically grant; ed Congress the power and authority to legislate over and provide punishment ; for? 2). Has the common-law authority relating to crimes and punishments, ever been legally conferred upon the United States Government through the U.S. Constitution or by a properly submitted and ratified Constitutional amendment? 3). What is the precise limit and scope of powers granted to Congress, by the U.S. Constitution, as was interpreted, understood, written, and adopted by the Framers, in regard to the regulation of commerce? 4). Does Congress have the Constitutional power and authority, either sua sponte or by a properly submitted and ratified Constitutional amendment, to legal“x ly confer upon any inferior district court sitting outside the District of Columbia within the external boundaries of any State in this Union with any criminal jurisdiction? 5). Does the current interpretation of the Commerce and the Necessary and Proper clauses conjunctively by Congress and the Federal Government, comport : with the original understanding, intent, interpretation, and purpose as was written and adopted by the Framers? 6). Can an inferior district court sitting outside the District of Columbia in the exterior boundary of any State of this Union, seek and maintain an indictment against a defendant for criminal offenses committed within a State _ that are common-law criminal offenses? 7). Is an inferior district court sitting outside the District of Columbia inside the external boundaries of any State of this Union, constrained only to sitting in judgment over cases and controversies, which are civil in nature, as written and adopted by the Framers? 8) Unless requested by the State to augment and assist with State and local law enforcement, does the Federal Government's police power alone ever extend be~ yond it’s geographic location that the Federal Government has exclusive jurisdiction over within any State of this Union? PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS . . Roy Allen Nichols, the Petitioner, respectfully asks this Court to grant a Writ of Habeas Corpus to reverse the conviction and..sentence in this case from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Western Division, and the Opinion from the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Case No» .3:17=CR~00372 and Case No. 184240, respectively. : . . OPINIONS BELOW The Opinion of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in United States v. Roy Nichols, (Case No. 18-4240) affirming trial Court's decision | was rendered on February 4, 2020 and the Judgment of the United States District Court for Northern District of Ohio, Western Division in United States v. Roy Nichols, (Case No. 3:17-CR-00372) was entered on.December 3, 2018. ; : JURISDICTION This Petition seeks reversal and relief from the conviction impos. ed by the trial court as well as the Opinion of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Specifically at issue is not only the District Court's erroneous application of a five-level sentencing enhancement, but also the Government and the court below did not have the proper subject-matter jurisdiction, criminal enforcability powers, and criminal jurisdiction authority beyond it's geographic location and exclusive jurisdiction, in direct violation of Article I, sec. 8, clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution, and many others, as well as the abandonment of their duty and sworn oath to uphold the Constitution. The Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 USC §1254(1) ; and United States Supreme Court Rule 13.1 and 13.3. : ;