Whether the State of North Carolina's continued confinement of the Petitioner is unconstitutional under the Court's prior rulings

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED , 7.25% lawlol for the Slade of North Carolina fo hold the herein Pel?troner under untonsttlutonel lonkinement uncer the Courl’s UnexPlained refusal fo Utheld #48 authority under Slafules , order, Provicion§ , and OPinionS , and Previously televant Uniled Slates Sutreme Courl decrsions ruled as Conslételtonal Prolecded Provision 4 and requirements 7 QotS 2H Constifulionally lauiful for the Stele of North Carolina to Gntinue fo hold Felitioner Unley Stodules, orders , Provision’ , oP nions , and decisions fthed the Stele Sufreme Court of North Carolina has Previously ruled unconstifulvonal on their face ? 3.De¢d the florth Ceroling Slate Courl ascribe Surisdiclion fo try , Convict , and Ponrsh Petitioner without facially valid Crinatnal PleachingS onder Unleaslitl tubrPSonnent én Violation of Gnstelulion.! Due Process Protections ? -j