Question not identified

QUESTIONS PRESENTED =“ 1 Does the substantial holding in United States of America V. Demario CHATMON, (2nd Cir.)}, the court held"that because the initial seizure of defendant was not justified, the search of his person while in custody is not justified as an inventory search. WHEREBY, evidencé from the station search must be suppressed."Apply on collateral review to petitioner? 2 Does the ‘unequivocal pro se, motion for speedy trial statutory right under 18 U.S.C.§3161(c)(1) and 18 U.S.C.§3162(a)(2). Apply on collateral review to petitioner? -' t . 3: Does the subsequent denial of speedy trial time limit and exclusion under 18 -U.S.C.§3161(E), "that ‘trial shail commence within seventy days from the date the action occasioning the retrial: became final." Apply'on wot ‘collateral review to ‘petitioner?: . | er ok . . : .. : . 4 Does the’ Sixth Amendment in the United States Constitution, outlining the criminal defendant's right (1)"to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury."Apply on collateral review to petitioner? 5 Does the United States Supreme Court holding that"ineffective Assistance of Counsel entitle defendants to have his/her conviction overturned."Apply on collateral review to petitioner? 6 Does the State of New York Court of Appeals denial of petitioner's reconsideration petition for leave to appeal, till after the court renders a decision in other cases, not associated with petitioner's petition for leave , Y —, ‘ to appeal, per se prejudice? 7 Does the lack of competent representation requiring court appointed counsel within petitioner's criminal case, to have the legal knowledge, skills, thoroughness, and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation of petitioner. Apply on collateral review to petitioner? 8 Does the substantial holding in Miranda V. Arizonia, holding "that government may not introduce statements made by an individual who is subject , to custodial interrogation unless he first was read his Miranda warnings." Apply on collateral review to petitioner? | 9 Does ineffective assistance of counsel apply where petitioner's court appointed lawyer, failed to communicate with petitioner about the means by which petitioner objectives are to be accomplished. Or keep petitioner reasonably inform about the status of the matter to be accomplished. Apply on collateral review to petitioner? 10 What is the interpretation of Constitutional Protection under Ineffective Assistance of Counsel, denial of Due Process in violation of the fourteenth Amendment? ~~ In persuasive authority leading case on point UNITED STATE V. CHATMON (2020), the United States District Court Second Circuit, held that "evidence from the station search must be suppressed because the traffic stop was not supported by reasonable suspicion, nor the seizure of defendant supported by probable cause". ADDITIONALLY, the courts held that "temporary detention of an individual during a traffic stop is limitation under the Fourteenth Amendment, as a seizure of the person. The Fourth Amendment requires that an officer making such a stop have probable cause. Or reasonable suspicion that the person stopped has committed a traffic violation, or otherwise engaged in or about to be engaged in criminal activity. No Probable Cause; HERE, petitioner asserts that his conviction, for possession of weapon, in the interest of justice should be reversed, because petitioner was prior acquitted of the alleged traffic violations leading to his arrest, in the case now being appealed. WHEREIN, jury found officers conducted an illegal stop and search of petitioner, and the traffic stop lacked probable cause, nor resulted in a traffic infraction/citation prior, during or after petitioner's arrest on said alleged traffic violations. In persuasive authority leading case on point MIRANDA V. ARIZONIA (1966), the Supreme Court created prophylactic rules through Miranda, and its progeny that are designed to provide an added measure of protection against the inhe