Whether the lower courts abused their discretion and erred in light of Supreme Court precedent

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED “ DP WHETHER THE LoWER courrs ABUSED THerA Dxsceexton & CARED, TY LIGAT OF Whats COURTS PRECEDENT OF PEPPHA VJ. UNTIED STATES, S62 UWS-ATE\4HAALSIBV S-e%. NZZA VIA L. Geb. 24 VG C211) prow There own PRECEDENT OF UNTVED STATES V. TOUNSON, 26 GAM TZ6 (ETH e3R, 2029): LNSITED STAVES Ne McCall, Zo Fe AM Woe, WIS (6M OFR. 202)): ag UNaTED ~? STANES Vi WATKINS 2022 U-SDIST. LEXES 656151116 Gad.\252022), WHEN WEN DISREGARDED) TGNORED & FATLED VO CoNSEDER THE PETE TIONER’s SUBMINVED REcoRD EVIDENCE OF AES EXTREME & BEennneeABle Post Sentence Apsp TA-cusTobyY REWABILETAT TON 2 =F So, WRETHE. THe LoWEr COURTS ABUSED TREELA DISCRETIOD 2 eReED rp Sor NeeING We PDDRESS WHETHER THe PETETIONER DemonsTeATSGD @CTRAOK RDINARRY OR COPAPELLING REASONS WARZBRNTING A Senve ics AeSpucr NBON BECAUSE THe DISTRICT coury’s $ 35536) pedNSES WAS euceyeSav To OP WOLD Weert DENTAL oF The PevTIxtoneeg'’s COMPASS TON Bete, RELEASE MoTTONs 2?” aD. WETHER TAS PEXETIONERTS NUMEROUS AETURL INNOCENcE CLAIMS, Th RIGSWYT OF THe U.S. SUPREME COURT'S DEcTISrTONS “xpd UPIoT<ed STAVES VY. ROPRTQUEL SSS U-SBVWIWVSSATA6 (2002)) CRRAONART= ROSENDO Vo WKOLDER, SEO U-S$634511 9.125130 S2et 2571.1 LiGd. 2A 6% (20105 ARID REWASE Vn UNITED STATGS134 5.24. 219), 204 Lied 2d 5qy C2019), TScluaTNG “ke «CLASS OF A COMSPIRRCT TO COMMATT MURDER 2A consPrenay AGPSNST MN GIONS AND LICE BY THE TEDERAL GOVERNMaE ny & PRrTSOp OF FALCIAS, WEENS TWAE CRIVERTA O}F EKTRAODRDINARY AID COMPELLING REASONS WARRADSTING A COMPASSEONATSG RQelcasa-. SENTENCING REDUCLON J TE SO4 WHETHER THE LOWER COURTS ABUSED Them. Dascee-T ON & SEXED IN VISRECARDING TSNORAING AND Cra las to AER) CONSTDER A FIND WHETHER TRE PETITIONER'S SCTRAORDINARY parE COPARPELLING REASONS BDLD Meet He “RI TerRtA FoF PRY CONLPASSLOPKS RELEASE “SENTENCING REDUSTEON poy pal 7” BD. WRENCH, ND LEST OF THE LAMA OF \S UsS.c. 5 BOOCA PD We US. CONS TITUTEON A STDETK PIWENDMWENT BOUT “To THE GTTeetIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, THE PETITIONERS RIGUTS TO TRE aEtCeorne ASSTSTANGE OF COUNSEL Were VEOLANED BY THE COURT APPOINTED FEDERAL PUBLIC DatanDER tN WES ClBENT’s FIRST STEE ACT mottoK) AND KPPERL AS OF RESORT Z TE SO, WHETHER WHE Lowes courts aBuseD TUE DESCHEETION BZ ERRGD AN DISREGARPING ,ISNOEING pansy FRELING TO DEW CONSAVER FIND & Look INTO WHETHER THE COURT PCRPOSDOTED FEDERAL YABUSe DEFENDER WAS INGEST ENG en) woes PSSBSTANCE AEX ALL 2% w