Whether it is inconsistent with this Court's Slack v. McDaniel 524 U.S. 473 (2002) standard for a Court of Appeals to decline to issue a Certificate of Appealability to examine whether a district Court violates a Habeas Petitioner's 5th Amendment right to a full and fair opportunity to exercise 28 U.S.C. § 2255 claims by failing to give a pro se movant an opportunity to amend a poorly pleaded § 2255 motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 before summarily dismissing the motion with prejudice merely six days after it was filed and only three (3) months into the § 2255(f) statute of limitations

No question identified. : QUESTICON PRESENTED L. Whether rt 1s Tnconsistent With this CGouds Slacku McDaniel 824 5-473 Qend) Standard Foc a Gouct of AeQals to doctine to 146ue a Codifcate of AoPealatoility te Exauine whether a distick Court Vicletes a Halbess Mavens FL Amada Rial tsa Fulland Fair OPectuntly te Execcise 26USC. $6 TLST WORsses by fpilina ta Give a Pro Se Meurt an APPactunte te Auend a Poorly Plended Forust Motion Qucsumit te Fed. AGuUP IS oefoce Suwmmanly Dismissed the Metin With Prerudicn Meela Six lA boys oFterit ules Aled and ony Hace (3) Months itette 99 MSF Stub & luictertios. LLat cf PARTIES Petitioner Chacled Micrael Ledford ‘Restondeuct Unrted States of Amence other Pacties ta He Procoainas Belst There ate Garvlertls ne OVLer Yaities + Hee Preceedii3s Below . “ie TABLE OF CONTESTA Question Presoted . . ; . . ; Fi , . 4 Liat of Pacties ’ . a ‘ . ‘ ‘ . ‘ i Table of Cowtents ‘ : ‘ é ‘ . ‘ vie Table of Audthocities . : . . . . . . iv “Table of Aucthonttes . ; . . . . io. i v Pekition fora Wet & GAtorad . : . . Coe NA Ordec ond Juddmedt Polo « « : ‘ eo, fxhbd A Jurisdiction’ Statemecd 2, \ t . . : ; aT Constrtichonad Provisions: Strtukes: and ‘Resulokions iwiclued .; : . . . . © Uta vil Stoheureat of He Case . ‘ . . ‘ . ‘ ce on | ‘Reasonatec Gradina the Wert , be ThA Dacoadis tok UL tis Cours Siac u. UeDaniel S24 08. 473 Cracd Standard. a. Coeet ef Ae Qual s fe decline te i4sue & Cectifiuste & Reeala. bi 40 evouling Whether o district Couct Violates a Halaeas Ananks FIP Amendment cidht to a Rilland Rite OPPactunty te Exercise 24 USc. TO609805 bY frahina fo Give a Pre Se Mououtt on DPtertanchs ty Awwata Teatlis Pleaded Focwet Mectinn Pursuait ts fod .2.Cu.? 1S Oefere Summacla Doawissina the Netion ullth Aeludig merely Sy dors after 4 ulod Cied and only Hncee (3) months ints the % 2se(Pvr) Stabdek \Wnttetas, ‘ ' + ‘ ‘ 1 . © FS ‘ ie ~ H Ac The SuPeuwe Couct is Justified iv Craurting Cectiorari is this Cose to Offer a Definitive Oniforun Ducter Portakion & Rude 40b) of tho Rules “bo Full ond Foie OPPertuntes +e Pesect Holens Cloius and Morand Such Claind Consist worth Rulers, Fed A.Gu.P 6 4 © &if Conclusion 2, Coo, Coo too, C4 i =i “TARE OF AUTHOAL TICS Noton ve rarker AFM Gem) 2 6 6 eT Guadcay. Sullivans $31 Fad suC2d Cir. aed), Looe . 7 Ledford u. Uuikedetles, LOLI ust. est Gie(200)) rc, PeKa v. United States ; 157 Fd 944 C5 Cir 1948), ‘ : eo 7 Glad vi MeDewels 924 US 475 Coos) . . 6 ° Passi Uwited States v. Ledford: 43 Fed. Aekx i MG or). 8 Uncted Stetes uv. Lad Ce, No. 22-Cas (4°Ge Nue , WD) \ ‘ W 4 UuckerStates vi Mare. 356720 ior 8) 2 eT | United States ve Macliners si Fad tis 499 aT Stechutes, Rules i and Reauletiond’ ZIG. 9 BIGAOIE MICA, HE Ck \ 29 US.L 5 VERMA a. ee | Uy usit. 99 Usa ebSee 2g 2 ‘ ‘ ‘ be P6551 un Federal Rule & Civcd Procedune. Woe kk PR Rules, 465 Coovernma Seetiin USS . . d » b & 6 «6 \ U496 49 Mil etsea, . ¢ t 2 . Pe 2 R596 5994 ACI, BEL) ‘ ' : ‘ i . : rr en Oa Suteme Cost Rue wiedsled . . . ee ek a | -W | PEVCTION FOR A WRET OF CERTIDRARL Petitioners Charles Hidraet Ledford, 64 and Hreouda Has Pro se tetition (pe fertCuly fequests oF-His Henaralate Coust to smut a Wet of Coticcasr te Ceviews thu Sudouect of Ho Unded Stabes Court & Rorenls-for He Fourth Ciceust wn His Case dewlina a Cocdificate of MePoubalsity | ODER AND AuDGMENT BELOW | The case Welw! las Shed as Uwickd States u. Ledford, No. 22cmd CUM, Jame 4) LOL). “The Fourkh Ciccutt Court & Artecla’ order dewina a Coctifieate | of Artabalility is aLtaced hereto. : DURTSTICCTON | The Faucts Circuit Comet of Aorects ewtered is Order Senvina a Cort Gide | of Aerenbasiit on Sune 26) 2012. Theetate, the Juradictan af Hrs Cout us invdked Pursuant te 26 USC. 99 25H) amd Surioms Coust Rude wed Le, CONSTITUTIONAL PRUUILSIONS » STATUTES. AND REGULATIONS Duivcived The Presoat Case \wulcives the dP Plicction of Aiundawwatal Dus Proves £ low undue He Filth Aumondimot of the United States Corstihaion as arrhes to 0 Pro Se 274 USL. 95 Tiss M