Whether the appellate court erred in possessing the legal significance of the exculpatory material of the three sworn affidavits tending to exonerate Mr. Hines, and deny him his Sixth Amendment right against illegal detention, and his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process in concluding that the petitioner failed to satisfy the requirements of Virginia Code § 19.2-327.10?

No question identified. : Sn uections Resomded ee Dicl ne appellate court exrar im ossessing ne \egel Stanficance ofthe en moherialitty of the Shee sworn Aidavits bending so exonerate Me . whi Hones,and deny Mine petitioner Wis \iloacty ley vickakidg lis Foor, en Amendment Cigak agains \lecel ceskenink, and kis Vourkeent Meendment a Tight te shoe orocess in Concluding Yaak the. getitiones Gailed ko Satisfy ee ne xequicements of Viesiria Code Si a-BI MUO? ae rid the appellate court excor ond deny the pabitionec his Sixth Kmendment ee “isht-t.a compulsory process for chtaining witnesses in bis Savor ly ee using jks disccetion ha declining t» acdes the ceil Couck to conduck n.evidentiacy Iheacing to ceckidy Sinddings of Gack pucswank ko Viegnin ne ede G\aBIBI _ Se SS hether here's plein exrar Viclaking the petitioners Fourkeenth Amendment due. process cight Naat Sevioucly fects the Saieness, ee disagreement omoug, the lower Courss, when evidence Solricated —_. ley by tthe oraseculer uius a Key Sontor in tne agellate courts denieh ee F the petitioners virit of actual innocence after the Supreme Cou —_—. isconduck ts_nok of Yne type that would Sameer usitle dich ee mocinery ac subverk the integrity of the Couse% we Tbe OP Mhosibies CASES AES ee Bloke y lambert, WA\ ES ais, a19 (ShCic aoa) ow ——-_-_| Davis v. Maske, 415 U.S Bos sibGaw) —__—._-_|Devis_v. Smyth, 155 Fad 3 C4 Ci 4) Hol\_v. Quactecman, 534 83d 365, BeT-64 (sth Cin Qo0g) ass V. Commonwealth, 233 Va. 294,299, 71 SEad uadaow) Fer jelinsanv. Commonwealth, ABT Va. 31S (aoo7. | Kyles vw Whitley, 514 US. IG 435 Cigasy | awlor v. Commoatsea\th, ASS Va. 187, 213,738 S.Bad B41C90r3) | Mer_v. Commonweal tly, 73 Va Noe 445,459 (2001) AUS. _v. Arkingon, 297 US.157, Meo (936) tg a J5.v, Boothe, A944 Fad 3 Cand Cin 993) U.S. v, Cross, 92% Fad 1OZ0 Cm Cin Mt CONSTTTUTIONAL PROVESTONS: United States Constitution, Amendments tv, vr,endxtvy STATUTES: io. Acts, C994 Gove) icginia Code 9 19.0-397. UW Caydvird 3,5,le . ——-—-—| Virginia Code GIDO-BaTia 8G | Virginia Code § 14,.0°-387,53 . * . | . | IN THE | SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI Petitioner respectfully prays that a writ of certiorari issue to review the judgment below. OPINIONS BELOW : [ ] For cases from federal courts: The opinion of the United States court of appeals appears at