Question not identified.

No question identified. : Pages 2 of 17, Notice to Appeilant, Changtd Course, and leaving him without Tepresentstion, Causing Appeilen+ Prose to pursut thé Lorit of Ceptiorary SO hiS aleCESS “tO The Courts may bé Teaized, if you will Please take in Consideretion the Following. THE BASIS FoR TURISDICTION IN THIS CouRT March 20,2023 a Unidenrified of UNnNamed Tudgét, Csingle Tudge) issued 3 order from within the Eleventh Circuit Apptals Court denying Appéiient a Certificate of 2ppralebiity Solty based on Fraud and Mispepresentdrion. dont by a officer within the U8. DiStric? Cour? Keptiiant's objections to “the fraud and mise presente ons Madé before tht Disiric? Cour*, and again, Within hiS Noict of Appeal, was totaly ignored, disregarded, Permitting the fabrications to become public Teconds in federal database as True, when officers of both Courts Wes ON NoHicé that theif opinions and Findings were indgecl falsified. Inspite. of the Tepsated notices, of ficers Within both District and Eleuenth Circus? Allowed falsified opinton$ and Findings to be their bases +o diny Apetilant @ Certificate of Appsalability. The setcific Fraud and MiSTE presinisrionS are the Following > Pages 3.0f 7, 1. Reginald Burret is an Alabama Prisonth, Serving a 907 ytar Sentence ae 2. He filed a prost 23 us.c.§ 225u petition 3. Ae challenging tht méthed by which Alabama Deparment of CorrtctionS Caiculattd hiS sentenc& and applita INCENFIVE time Credrts, 4. WE Challeng’ state courts decisians denying him leave to _proceta without the prepayment of fee. Apeil 24, 2023 the Eleventh Circui ApptalS Cour® dtnrtd reconsideration that Appéllent filed March 20; 202%. The denial of Appsilent's Motion for Veconsidefation of tht Singlt Tudgt order courtd ony Terterate the facts, materiel Evidence that was Presented to tht District Court, but ignored and EXOucltd a8 1 7+ did not EXTS+t, which Suppett!sS the Following $ A. Tneré nene& way A 28 US.C$ 2254 Petition Filed in ME District Court, the Application was A Court provided, | GQeniral Habtas Corpus Petition. Impropeny Teferred to AS A §$225y, ee Pages 4. of 17, The Ceified Sentencing Order From the Circuit Cour} Of Mobilt County Alabama , material fact, that ht was “Mo longeF Serving thE SO year sentenct . Clarifying his HAbeAS Corpus Application Claim that ht began SEMNing A JS ytar Sentence August Y, 2018. Clarifying his Habeas CompuS Applicat isn, Grate Heart ExhauStion of Staté Court remedy Claim, thot hé wad BOAvally indigent, his inadidiay to Pay Staté Courts Filing fees, and State Cours remedies was not avarlable ‘To him, ineffective, or inasdtquatt. Clarif¥ing thatthe state Court remedy that was ONailablt, and without Cost in advanct, Evén tha+ Temzdy w23 abruptly foreclosed by the imposition of Unlawful fess, 1 Clarifying that there was a. feckerai Sight for indigent Criminal defendant to access the Courts without bting Téquired +0 Prepay fi Ying fies as determined by the U.S, Supremé Court CIIing an offenclers federa) Pignt to an legitimate Expectancy of tnt lingnt and Extent of their sentence. Pages S.of 17, WN AN EXTENSION OF TIME LIS DustiBiep Evtn when thé available Stat’ Court Temtdyprohibited 41'S Courts! From Féquiring Pay in advance, the Court Tequirtd Appellant to pay in advance. Although Stott Law Pequire’s Stote Cours: to base their decision Whether 3 prisentr 1s indigtat on the prememar OVS lable Institwhsnal acegunt balance, Ststé COUNY based Appéilent's Indigency ON money ht had jn the PAST, Whtn he Simpry Couid not afford the amounts OF monty Stott Cours Tequiré in advencé&, in Full. STSt® Courts madt.a decision to deny an indigent person ACCESS to the Court against Cleardy Esbabrished feclere; Yau, as determined by ‘tht ULS. Supriems Cour}. The ULS, Disterct? Cy urd ignore this Federal iaw. And tht Elenenth Cipeui} ApptalS Court Sanctis nid this departure | An addiction, Appellant Sentence to b& sepvid, ordined by (S Court of Compttent durisdicaion Should not be denied by Prison offrci