Whether the jurisdiction of this court is invoked under 28-U.S.C.-1257(a)

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED Whether the jurisdiction of this court is invoked under 28 U.S.C. | §1257(a) concerning a state prisoners'claim(s) that was adjudicated on the merits in state must stand, 28 U.S.C.§2254(d), unless state court judgment resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of clearly established federal , law,-"to be charged,tried,and convicted of a predicate offense",the governing count's 1 & 8 are sentence enhancers'as the Elements of SAOC (sex assault on a child) was not included in governing counts 1 & 8," cannot be charged with enhancer counts'only"...ie: Colorado Court of Appeals People v. Torrez,2013 COA 37 applies, or "G1A] sentence enhancement factor...like the substantive predicate offense, must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt'! subsequent to governing counts 1 & 8 are charged sentence enhancers only, and are unreasonable determination of facts to the case in which Judge Colts' audit review exposed fraud upon an already faulty indictment,"denied the right to representation and/or be present at every step/stage of court proceedings in which Mr.Cox complains, Penny v. People, 146 Colo. 95, 360 P.2d 671 (1961) or Whether a state prisoner must go through all avenues of relief in thes state courts'before going to federal court,(total exhaustion rule) thus state courts chose not to fix the errors mentioned in all briefs in support 35(a)---U.S. 10th.Circuit Gourt of Appeals em-passim but . leaned on procedural default claims, (time barr), which is not based on any Supreme Court case as this petitioner has always been very much active in all his timely filed pro se pleadings. Rose v. Lundy, 540 U.S. 509 (1982), all errors had substantial injurious affects' and influence in Mr.Cox trial determination. Dunn v. Madison,138 S.Ct. 9 | (2017). 9 . | QUESTION(S) PRESENTED | cont. (better luck with a DCR petition because the AEDPA forbade the Court from granting him any relief),(AEDPA's deferential standard no longer governs) ,Madison v. Alabama, 139 S.Ct. 718 (2019). or Whether a state district court plainly miscalculates Mr.Cox guidline range to eventual freedom of some meaningful opportunity to obtain parole during his lifetime must be analyzed seperately and the mistakes' also affected Mr.Cox substantial rights to exercising discretion to resentence or to vacate the sentence. Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012),(life without parole equivilant) imposed without a finding that Mr.Cox was irreparably corrupt or permanently incorrigible. Montgomery v. Louisiana,577 U.S__,136 S.Ct. 718, 193 L.Ed.2d 599 (2016), (holding Miller supra retroactive). | 3 ee co , oe ; | ; .