Whether the Fourth Circuit has appellate jurisdiction when a District Court remands a case that was removed pursuant 28 U.S.C. §1443, whereas the Petitioner's grounds for removal was mass systemic violations of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 due to malicious and false prosecution for aiding and abetting an African American student, disabled students, and the Petitioner's own child in securing their civil-rights

QUESTION PRESENTED Section 1447(d) of Title 28 of the United States Code expressly provides that an order remanding a case that was removed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1442 or 28 U.S.C. §1443 is reviewable by appeal or otherwise. This wise Court in BP PLLC v. Mayor 7 and City Council of Baltimore a. case involving removal under 28 U.S.C. §1442, affirmed: “The Fourth Circuit erred in holding that it was powerless to consider all of the defendants’ grounds for removal under §1447(d).” (141 S. Ct. 1532, 1538 (2021). The Fourth Circuit, shortly after having been corrected by the Court: subsequently in Viaming v. West Point School Board, No 20-1940 (4% Cir 2021) held: But when a defendant removes a case to federal court pursuant to the civil rights removal statute, §1447(d) permits appellate review of the district court’s remand orderwithout any further qualification (emphasis added) The Fourth Circuit in the opinion below, has denied jurisdiction, in an unpublished opinion, citing the lack of jurisdiction, establishing jurisdictional qualification when further qualification is not required. Unfortunately, the Fourth Circuit after being corrected, and having previously demonstrated obedience to this Court’s precedence; departed with its applied jurisprudence now beckoning further and continued realignment. Whether the Fourth Circuit has appellate jurisdiction when a District Court remands a case 2 that was removed pursuant 28 U.S.C. §1443, whereas the Petitioner’s grounds for removal was mass systemic violations of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 due to ; malicious and false prosecution for aiding and : abetting an African American student, disabled students, and the Petitioner’s own child in securing their civil rights in terms of racial equality as provided by the United States Congress and the American People.