Question not identified

No question identified. : . “ COVER. PAGED. ad ok CONTINUE FROM COMER. PARE — RESPONDENTS ON PETITION FORA WRIT OF CERTIORAR| TO _ THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Foe THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, ; . (NAME OF COURT THAT LAST BULED On MERITS OF YOUR. CASE ) _ PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORAR\ — MARVIN EDuardo LUNA GOMEZ (Your. Name) eo VADOC CENTRALIZED MAIL DISTRIBUTION CENTER . 352) WOODS wWAy STATE FARM, VIRGINIA 23100 (City, STATE, Z/P CODE) mone nf. . ( PRONE NumBeER. ) e Le x... QUESTION (S)_ PRESENTED. _ -nn €) ee “THIS CASE PRESENTS FUNDAMEN TALC QUESTION OF THE INTER PLE TATION OF THIS Coles ~ TRECISION IN WOLFE MEDONNELL , HIB US» 539, SCE, F $7 CT 2463 (1994) — THE QUES TION PRESENTED IS FOREOF GREAT PUGUC IMPORTANCE BECAUSE TT AFRECTS tHE" ODERATIONS OF THE PRISONS SYSTEM IN ALE 5O STATES, THE DK TT OF GAUMEIA, AND HUNDREDS ~~ —~ 7 EP ano county FAILS OLN VIEW “OF THE LARGE MOUNT OF LITIGATION “OVER PRISON DIScIpUNARY ~ 77 BRoceEDINGS, GUIDANLE ON HE QUESTION 15 AL'30 OF GWERT THIPOR TANCE To paisanees, —--——— BECAUSE 17 AFFECTS THEIL ABILITY To LETEIVE PIRIR DECISIONS IN PROCEEDINGS THAT MAY — RESULT IN MONTHS OR YEARS OF RODED INCARLERA TION OLUALL H PUM TIVE CONFINE MENT, ~~" ““TTHIS CASE ALSO PRESENTS A QUESTION OF THE INTERPRETATION OF THIS COURN OF THE FEDERAL TRUCE IN CWWIE PROCEOURE 5 2 ¢ Q) IN $65.2 EFFECTIVENESS AT TRIAT THAT PROVIDES 77 — ye STEICELAND STANDARD. 2) STANDARD FOR REWEAY OF TEIACACTIONS —3)S7ANDARD FER Re EAN“ HY HEMT OF BATTLE DEZISIONS [IN CASES WHERE THE "CIEARLY ERPON EDS“ + STANDARD HAS BEEN APPLIED PURSVANIT TO Fenn cw:peorsx cay) WHERE “THE PENNONE TTT FAS SEELING COMPENSATION AND “THE PREISERHELE RULE (5 IN EFFECT BECAUSE THE SE WAS, OVER WR.NIED "THROUGH HABEAS CORPUS, INITH TIS COURTS: DELISION “FO SUPPOR-THIS CASE >> "7 IMPORTANCE “SIMILAR. TO LINER. V. GOORD 146 F3d 1327134 (ad CL At) HOLDING THAT 2B USC Z tqiS (AJ AMD YR-U-S-C $1999 (EY (COA) DIsmisSALS ave ~~ . Sonne enew “) WITH THIS COURTS DEZISION'IN ALLEN VEZ MC-CURRY, YY9 US 4a, 7 "YO $« CT. 4 (19B0) By CONTRAGS F1F THERE WAS NO DERISION INTHE CRIMINAL CASE ON TRE LEGALITY BEME SEARCH 08 ARREST YOUR. CLUMINAL CONVICTION WiLL NOT ESTO P YOU 7 PROM SUING FAGR. THE CONSTVW TION AK VICLATION |, HOW EVER BE IN 6 THAT, THIS CASE S$’ ~ T1SSUS IS NOT AGOUT WY CRIMINAL CONVICTION BECAUSE WAL RERDY OVERTURNED @ ~ "THIS CASE 1s MORE ABOUT ACCESSING THE COURT AND (et PLOWING EVIDENCE TT SELE Whe THE EMI DENCE 1S’ SUBSTAN TIAL TO PROVE “THAT ~CONSAITU TONAL, FEDERAL AND Ci RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED, BUT HE FIRST COURT FORCED A AND “THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFILMED THE DEEION WITADUT REVIEWS ASANO — —-—WoLEF: Ve MC-DONNIELL , 4/5. SMP US. 5297, 94 S7CT2963 C1474 JN Wick THE TT TT PEOPLES RIGHTS ARE REDAG DENIED WIEN ATTEMPTING TO EXERCISE THE RIGHT TO CONFRONTATION — — . “tf ~ “AND C£aSS EXAMINATION « soo 2 mm TTT ae se nn em TTT THE SSeS IMPORTANCE is ENHANCED By HE FACT THAT THE LOWER COURTS IN THIS CASE DID NET or BAD Way case samey PAIL TO SEE THE MATERIAL FACTS OF LEGAL MATTER WAS OVER LOOKED INA DEKKION THAT CON FURS WITH OTHERS DECISIONS OF THE SAME APPEALS —— —— ~ Set Ano OF cases “wart wrvawve a aves NOF EXCEPTIONAL IMPOR TANtE” 7 > > 7 AN VOLMING FARTS JB. THE DEL(SIONS IN CONFLICT WITH AUIHORAIWE DECISIONS ee "= OER FEDERAL APPEMLS COURTS “RULE 3S (b) FED =R.CN=P > AND “HE QUES ION ~~ Witt Wout Have HADEN ED IEE HAO BEEN 6WEN THE RIGHT TO A LAGPL HEARING , XS my OVE -— PROCESS 48. BPOUGHTIN« 2 ee ew | | or “+ Leone reo Quesnonis) pesenren Ba. 2 _.. "SEE, EF THAIS Vs WASHINGTON, 131 F.3d IAND, 1250 (FM CIR. 1497) ("YNDER THE PLEA, = oon aT IS AT LEAST THEORETICALLY PossiBLE THAT AN APPEAL FLOM A $EIUS A) OISMIAL (AND AccoMmp—= OO ANYTING DENIAL. OF LEAVE To PLOCEED IN FORMA paupER!s woistRict cv T) CoULO BE THKENIN — > gcon parti’, NEXCEPTIONAL CASES may ARISE IN WHICH A DISTRICT COURTS GRANTS LEAVE "TO'APPERI= ~~~ — A FORMA PRURERIS To Bola wo APPEALS A CLOSE QUESTION UNDER 34 iSAWNG00p7 . -eariMY y Sie ) PROVIDES FOR. FEDERAL COURT JURIS