What constitutes an expeditious remedy and/or a prompt hearing under 28 U.S.C. §2254

QUESTION(s) PRESENTED This case present an important: nationwide issue concerning what constitues an expeditious remedy and/or a prompt hearing under 28 U.S.C. §2254. The question(s) are: (1) what constitues "extraordinary circumstances," and (2) the true understanding of 28U.S.C. §2253(c)(2). This petition represents an opportunity for the Supreme Court to provide a more indepth definition on "extraordinary circumstance" under the law, and a more indepth meaning of 28 U.S.C. §2253(c)(2). Mr. Palomo present the questions that follow: (1) The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA)(28 U.S.C. §2244(d)(1) established a 1-year statute of limitation for a state prisoner's filing of a federal habeas corpus petition (§2254), but the AEDPA is subject , to equitable tolling cases that have alleged facts that are sufficient to satisfy the extraordinary circumstances pronprong of the equitable tolling test? (2) Does 28 U.S.C. §2244(d) provide a bright line limitation to define the meaning of "...extraordinary circumstance. -." in the statute? (3) Did Congress intend to allow district courts around the to employ inordinate delay by failing to define "...an extraordinary circumstances..." in 28 U.S.C. §2244(d)? (4) Did Congress impermissibly delegate its law making authority, to the U.S. district court, to determine for themselves what extraordinary means under the law? (5) Does the text of 28 U.S.C. §2244(d) require adherence to Congress’ intent for the statute to "provide an expedits ious remedy for correcting erroneous sentences? (6) Does not 28 U.S.C. §2253(c)(2) say that if applicant show the denial of a constitutional rights, is otherwise entitled to the issuance of a COA? (7) Does the text of 28 U.S.C. §2253(c)(2) require adherence to Congress' intent for the statute to "provide an expeditious remedy for correcting erroneous sentences? i LISTS OF PARTIES All parties do not appear in the caption of the case on the cover page. Mr. Palomo is the appellant below. A list of all