whether-sixth-circuit-erred

No question identified. : 28 U.S.C. 2253 (C 2B U.S.C. 2254) RULE 20.4 OF SUPREME COURT RULES OF THE U.S. STATEMENT OF ISSUE FOR REVIEW I.WHETHER THE SIXTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ERRED BY FINDING THAT THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE DID NOT ERR BY GRANTING THE STATE OF TENNESSEE MOTION TO DISMISS PETITIONER ANTHONY BROWN PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS RELIEF AS BEING TIME BARRED BY ONE YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ON HIS CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIMS OF INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL; | Il. WHETHER THE SIXTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ERRED BY FINDING THAT THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE DID NOT ERR BY DENYING PETITIONER ANTHONY BROWN MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO RULE 59 (e ) OF FEDERAL RULE CIVIL PROCEDURE ON MAY 17TH, 2022; Ill. WHETHER THE STATE OF TENNESSEE DENIED PETITIONER ANTHONY BROWN HIS DUE PROCESS RIGHT TO A FAIR PRELIMINARY HEARING BY ALTERING THE POLICE OFFICER TESTIMONY WHEN HE TESTIFIED AT THE iT} . HEARING THAT HE FOUND POWDER COCAINE BUT WHEN HE TESTIFIED AT TRIAL THAT HE FOUND CRACK COCAINE WHEN THE INDICTMENT CHARGE MR. BROWN WITH POWDER COCAINE IN VIOLATION OF THE FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. IV. WHETHER THE SIXTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ABUSE ITS DISCRETION BY FAILING TO CONSIDER PETITIONER ANTHONY BROWN PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS FILE IN THAT COURT IN DECEMBER OF 2022; V.WHETHER IT WOULD RESULT IN A FUNDAMENTAL MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE IF FAILURE TO CONSIDER PETITIONER ANTHONY BROWN CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIMS THAT THE STATE OF TENNESSEE DENY HIM DUE PROCESS OF LAW IN VIOLATION OF THE FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION; VI.WHETHER PETITIONER ANTHONY BROWN IS BEING UNLAWFULLY HELD IN CUSTODY ON PAROLE IN RESTRAINT OF HIS LIBERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW IN VIOLATION OF THE FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION; Vil. WHETHER PETITIONER ANTHONY BROWN CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW WAS iii VIOLATE WHEN HE WAS INDICTED FOR POWDER COCAINE AND CONVICTED FOR CRACK COCAINE WHICH DEPRIVE THE STATE COURT OF JURISDICTION TO ENTER THE JUDGMENT IN VIOLATION OF THE FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION; VIILWHETHER THE TENNESSEE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS DECISION TO UPHOLD PETITIONER ANTHONY BROWN CONVICTION FOR SELL AND DELIVER CRACK COCAINE IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE HE WASN’T INDICTED FOR CRACK COCAINE IN VIOLATION OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW IN VIOLATION OF THE FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION; THEREBY, THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS DECISION (1) RESULT IN A DECISION THAT WAS CONTRARY TO OR INVOLVED AN UNREASONABLE APPLICATION OF, CLEARLY ESTABLISHED FEDERAL LAW, AS DETERMINED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES;,OR (2) RESULT IN A DECISION THAT WAS BASED ON AN UNREASONABLE DETERMINATION OF THE FACTS IN LIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED IN THE STATE COURT PROCEEDING. SEE iv 1X. WHETHER PETITIONER ANTHONY BROWN WAS DENIED HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW TO A FAIR TRIAL IN VIOLATION OF HIS SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL IN VIOLATION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION; PARTIES 4. MR ANTHONY BROWN PRO-SE, IS THE PETITIONER IN THIS CASE IN WHICH HE . IS BEING ILLEGALLY HELD IN CUSTODY UNDER AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION ON PAROLE UNDER A FATAL VOID 20 YEARS SENTENCE IN VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION, LAWS OR TREATIES OF THE UNITED STATES.HE CAN BE CONTACT AT 1761 PRESTON MEMPHIS TN 38106. 2. RESPONDENT,JONATHAN SKRMETTI, IS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF TENNESSEE, HE CAN BE CONTACT AT P.O.BOX 20207 NASHVILLE TN 37202. 3. TABLE OF CONTENT STATE-VSBROWN, 1154284.5 SLACK-VS-MCDANIEL, 529 U.S.473, (2000).3, 6. OPINIONS BELOW CITATIONS OF THE OFFICIAL AND UNOFFICIAL REPORTS OF OPINIONS 1. THE OPINION OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ENTER ON NOVEMBER 0