Whether the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals abused its discretion

No question identified. : QUESTON NUMBER ONE: Whether the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals abused its discretion by Summarily Affirmance of Petitioner Patel’s 2241 Writ of Habeas Corpus Petition without conducting a de novo review, thus, did this violate Mr. Patel’s Procedural Due Process of Law Rights ? QUESTION NUMBER TWO: Whether the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals abused its discretion by affirming the district court’s procedural denial decision in regard to Ground | and Ground Vil in which relies upon “newly discovered evidence,” thus, are these claims cognizable under the savings clause of 28 U.S.C. 2255 (e) ? QUESTION NUMBER THREE: Whether the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals abused its discretion by affirming the district court’s procedural denial decision regarding Grounds Il, lil, IV, VI, Vill, IX, X, XI, and Xil, thus, are those claims cognizable under the savings clause of 28 U.S.C. 2255 (e), relying upon Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1 (2012); and Trevino v. Thaler, 569 U.S. 413 (2013) to excuse Patel’s procedural default ? QUESTION NUMBER FOUR: Whether the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals abused its discretion by affirming the district court’s procedural denial decision ii. 7 regarding Ground Five in which relies upon an “statutory | interpretation” in Rosemond v. United States, 572 U.S. 65 (2014), | thus, he stands “actually innocent” of Cts. 2-14, Health Care Fraud, Aiding & Abetting and Cts. 16-34, Distribution of Controlled Substances, Aiding & Abetting, therefore, is such claim cognizable via the savings clause of 28 U.S.C. 2255 (e) ? | | | | | | Ce Be | [x] All parties appear in the caption of the case on the cover page. [ ] All parties do not appear in the caption of the case on the cover page. A list of all