whether-the-court-of-appeal-erred-in-its-reliance-on-28-u.s.c.-§-2101(c)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW QUESTION(a) The entire erroneous reliance of the court of appeal in Ahmed v. Shoop, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 31469(6" Cir., Nov.14,2022). is upon 28 U.S.C. § 2101(c) when the ; Ahmed was not required to file the Rule 4(a)(6) Motion for extension of ; time under 28 U.S.C. § 2101(c) because time to file Notice of appeal had not elapsed,expired due to the Rule 58(a) “judgment was required to be set forth ina ‘separate document’ but was never so set forth in “separate document”. The judgment is deemed entered 150 days after the court's decision, per Rule 58(c)(2)(B). Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(7)(A)(ii); Mears v. Montgomery, 512 Fed. Appx. 100, 103(2"4 Cir. Feb.25,2013)( denial of his motion for an extension of time, as such a motion was unnecessary.). Wherefore, Appellant Ahmed had 150 days from the entry of (Ecf.203) on 9/7/21 to file his timely notice of appeal. The timely Notice of Appeal (Ecf.207) . was filed on 01/12/2022, on the 27+31+30+31+12= 131 days, thus timely. Rule 58, requires a district court to set forth every judgment "on a separate document" and provides that " Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292,303(1993) [a] judgment is effective only when so set [*303] forth and when entered as provided in Rule 79(a)."; See also Bankers Trust Co. v. Mallis, /datn.4 and ° 7,” separate judgment must be filed or waived in compliance with Rule 58 before a decision is "final" for purposes of § 1291”.) Fed. R. App. P. 4(a),(7)A\(ii),(B). See United States v. Indrelunas, 411 U.S. 216, 220-222, 36 L. Ed. 2d 202, 93 S. Ct. 1562 (1973) (per curiam). Bankers Trust Co. v. Mallis, 435 U.S. 381, 384, 386, 98 S. Ct. 1117, 55 L. Ed. 2d 357 (1978)( the separate-document rule must be "mechanically applied" in determining whether an appeal is timely. Jd., at 221-222.). Starr v. Crow, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 40171(10" Cir.2021(The district court did not enter a separate judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(a), giving (PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI)—Page | Mr. Starr the benefit of Rule 58(c)(2)(B), which deems judgment is automatically entered after 150 days and the decision to be final 150 days later). Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(7)A)(i).(B). UESTION(b} What is the remedy available, as Court of Appeal intentionally repeatedly avoids to Rule upon statutorily authorized pro se Motion to appoint conflict-free appeal Counsels and counsel for filing certiorari for a diagnosed with “serious mental illness”, disabled, incompetent appellant per 18 U.S.C. § 3599(a)(2), 18 U.S.C.S. § 3599(e), 18 U.S. C. § 3006A (c); 18 USCS § 3006A(a)(2)(B). 18 USCS §§ 2254(h); 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(g); and 6 Cir, R. 45(a)(5). 6 Cir, LO.P 12(c)(5), Martel v. Clair, 565 U.S. at 650, 652, 658, 659(2012): and Christeson v. Roper. 574 U.S. 373,377 (2015). Wilkins v. United States, 441 U.S. 468,469(1979).and Doherty v. United States, 404 U.S. 28. 92 S. Ct. 175, 30 L. Ed. 2d 149, 1971 U.S. LEXIS 15 (1971) (especially p. 29, et seq., Mr. Justice Douglas concurring). (PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARD—Page 17!