Whether the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit erred in denying all claims under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and 28 U.S.C. § 2255 related to the petitioner's sentence and conviction

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 1. werner Elm Vs foun BG Fad 100 P y (974 Ct Zoe J CASS AErIOA AREER LS RELEA, FH ER PS FOR TE IP fb EREGNT OF MONE, ERAER AER (MATES SEWING 4 ro FE SEVTEN CE M1 For FRE YO OSS EA I OF YAROLE £4 FYE STAYZ E OL LAVA A/S AE GIRS AI BEX AOXST” (A4E7™ OD OR cd CLOLES ° rae cons,» Arr <, Secon, ZS we S. Cons Ariz, SecYen z 70 “ A 4 of Ze WMMETIER. FO CAEP OLN fPROAIOSI ZF OA) Fe 7HE WETIANS BILL OF RL BIES (FOP O,= ECBO g (raccys cn 2) CVACTED FO AMENAED CALS ENNIY JJEMWAL CEAE SECFVOA) BOK. SWAVE KETLO ACTIVELY MMCREAS Cg) FIVE PLUME FB ALC AIAG FES COGICCE FED OF NONE ARIE. OFFENCE BCL ORE, FS EAWFICTQYIE T a WEN THE fWRECTOLS LIE) LA KLO) SAN BEpIS A? CPi re A BOARD OF JIRALE PEMINNE LIAS FRO LEASAS la Corts7e | Bf. Z Sec. ea LnSv Cons Apo Z, SEE. &, £2 6 : BEAZEM Vs ohio 269 oS, (EF WGP 0 (E670, (225) ; LyACe Ve MAVIKS SUP oSa GIS AKA AI¢l, (09 93). | SIA “DOE SBF aS, FY AX ar 92-93 (20037 | Zare, (lok 9 ze) Fak 3k H¥/0 6 TALE BRYSMEr (cers fY EM SPA PLE AL0. PIS 6 — watess “Chel ANS CONVENE NG” EVV WEN CE astblistes, Kha A Aer frvera Fan ween (5) ly CALS eg oa SHMLEE pres Js 2 YO 0° TEs CVE “eA code SAI ON ogi 5 CLA” 3QKhEZHER. THE SN/7ED STATES COURT” a pEehef DEWVED ALL CL AALS OAdeY EF te So CeSECe eA Md YZ. SoSe CeSECKIOAN V9E 3 tel VA O27 (EAVE COdLA / 7 BE (WFC LEP EA yw 4 QF EAENT wY Bde 7O THE COMPLERI TE OF FWE (SSUES AO VOL a7 | . , ae