Whether the 5th Circuit erred in affirming the district court's decision that allowed to convict Petitioner of money laundering based on transactions not proven to be proceeds of unlawful activity?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Petitioner Anurag Dass prays that this Honorable body of Judges of the Supreme Court of these United States will acknowledge and consider her submission of this Petition and know that she has consistently maintained that she is innocent of all charges. Further, she has evidence to support her Plea. Ms. Anurag Dass submits that she was denied her Sixth Amendment rights as per the U.S. Constitution. These rights include the opportunity to defend her position and her right to confront her accusers. She was forced, by threats and false statements by her Defense Attorney and his Assistant to, under duress, enter a Plea : of Guilty and agree to waive her rights without benefit of a clear understanding of the consequences of those actions. Lalfer vs. Cooper,566 U.S. 156,(2012); Gideon vs. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, Hill vs. Lockhart,474 U.S.52. Trusting her attorney, she did as she was instructed. Her counsel’s deficient advice deprived her of a trial and caused her to unwillingly accept a Guilty Plea. Strickland ; us. Washington, 466 U.S 688,(1984). There is "reasonability probability" that, but for counsel's errors, she would certainly not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial Hill v Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52. The court appointed Public Defender for Ms. Dass, but this public attorney requested to be removed from the case. Ms. Dass was denied another Public Defender to assist in her Appeals. Ms. Dass is financially unable to hire a private Attorney. The Administrative Offices of the US Courts for Educational Purposes holds that the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of counsel is a “fundamental 4 right essential to a fair trial and, as such, applies to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice Black, in overturning Betts v Brady, 816 U.S. 455 (1942), stated that “reason and reflection require us to recognize that in our adversary system of criminal justice, any person hauled into court, who is too poor to hire a lawyer, cannot be assured a fair trial unless ; counsel is provided.” Further, that the “noble ideal” of “fair trials before impartial tribunals in which every defendant stands equal before the law cannot be realized if the poor man charged with a crime has to face his accusers without a lawyer to assist him.” Question 1: Should both the Defense and Prosecution endeavor to seek truth, facts, proof and significance in their search for justice and share/reveal those finding in a Discovery without distortion or withholding? Question 2: Whether the 5th Circuit erred in affirming the district court's decision that allowed to convict Petitioner of money laundering based on transactions not proven to be proceeds of unlawful activity?: Question 3: Whether the Fifth Circuit erred in affirming ; the district court's decision to allow the admission of prejudicial evidence in violation of Federal Rule of . Evidence 404(b)