whether-new-york-cpl-440.10(2)(c)-statutes-being-amended

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED ; WHETHER, TO NEW YORK CP.L 440.10(2)(C) STATUTES BEING AMENDED PURSUANT RULE 60(b)(5)(6) RECONSIDERATION IS WARRANTED AS TO THE LOWER COURT ERROR IN DENYING THE MOTION TO SUPPRESS ’ ALL OF PETITIONER’S STATEMENT, WHICH WERE INVOLUNTARY , RENDERED AND VIOLATED HIS FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION. . , . WHETHER, THE REPRESENTATION TRIAL AND APPELLATE WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO ARGUE THE PROPER LEGAL AUTHORITY AT ; a THE SUPPRESSION HEARING, WHICH RESULTED. IN HIGHLY ‘INCRIMINATING EVIDENCE BEING ADMITTED IN PETITIONER JURY TRIAL IN VIOLATION OF PETITIONER FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS oe , WHETHER TH DISTRICT COURT ABUSED. ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT DENIED THE PETITIONER’S RULE 60(B) MOTION. A CHANGE IN NEW YORK STATE STATUE C.P.L 440.10(2)(C) WHICH THE DISTRICT COURT INVOKE DURING PETITIONER HABEAS PETITION, PROCEDURAL BARRING THE ISSUE WHETHER ‘# PETITIONER CONFESSION: SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS A RESULT OF HIM INVOKING HIS RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT WHETHER DISTRICT COURT ABUSED HIS DISCRETION UPON THE “EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ~TO GRANT PETITIONER RELIEF ON THE GROUNDS RAISED IN HIS THIRD RULE 60(B) MOTION PURSUANT TO THE TEST ISSUED IN SARGENT V COLUMBIA FOREST PRODUCTS, INC 75 F:3D 86 (2D CIR 1996),