HOW CAN tHE dIRECT APPAL bE hEId INTO JUBMISAON FOR APPROXIIMATELY (3) MHRE YEARS, PRaM SEPTEMbA 27, ZO17, UNITIL JANUMRY 17, ZOZO, WHEN tHhE PITONER hAS A FIghT To FiLE A TIMELY APPhaATION FOR A UpIT OF hAbAS Co pOUS ON bEhAF oF A PARSOW M CUSTODy, PORSOANT TO thE Jung MENT OF A STATE CONT.

HOw is thE PETiTIONER AbLE TO EXHAUST thE REMEdIES AVAILALE IN HE COUET oF HE STTE, WHIN THE DRET APAL WAS hEd APPROKiNATELY (3) tHeE YARS iNTO SUMISSON PoM OLOY 21 ANHI 1M LIOE WAIS

WAS THERE A UNITED STHTES COUSTITOTION, AMENDMENT FIVE (5) VIOLATION IN MMY CASE.

POES thE PETiTOuR hAVE A RighT TO MiRnNdA wAnINGs, BEFORE INTERROGAHTIONS CONdUCTEd by LAW ENFILCEMENT.

POES HHE PETITIONIR hANE A RIghT TO SUFFRESS THE EVdANCE ON dUE PROCESS GROMAS.

DOES TAKEN MHE dIRECT APPEAL INTO SUHMISSION FOR APPROXIMATELY (3) HEE YANES, AFTER CONVITION ANd SENTENCE MN THE STATE CONT, CONSTITUTE A VIOLATION ONCER 28 U.S.C. 226 3/A).

I'S HERE A ABSENCE OF AVAILABLE STATE COPRECTINE PROCESS.

DOES CIRCUNISTANCES EXIST MHAT RENDER SUCH PROCESS INEFFETINE TO PROTECT thE RiIghTS OF thE APPLICANT.

Whether the district court's denial of petitioner's motion to dismiss the indictment for violation of the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. 3161(c)(1), constitutes a violation of the petitioner's constitutional and statutory rights