Whether the Fourth Circuit violated due process and the Fourteenth Amendment by affirming dismissal of bankruptcy proceedings without addressing material legal issues, precedential case law, and claims of real estate fraud and improper deprivation of property rights without adequate hearing or reasoned opinion

No question identified. : Comes now, Petitioner, Daryl A. Green, files this Amended motion to extend time to file petition for certiorari with the United States Supreme Court pursuant to the court clerk’s direction dated 9-212023. The clerk’s letter was not received until 9-30-2023. Corrections were made pursuant to Rule 13.5 — Attaching the lower courts opinions. Including orders staying mandate, and denying petition for rehearing. Petitioner (Mr. Green) respectfully requests an extension of time to file petition for sixty (60) days, or as much time as the court may deem appropriate. All parties will be served at known addresses via U.S. Postal Service, and states as follows: 1. Petitioner, Daryl Green intends to petition this court for writ of certiorari from the U.S. Federal Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit (No.: 22-1705) This case stems from a bankruptcy matter (No.: 1913656) and was appealed to the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland (No.: 8:21-ev-02441). The Fourth Circuit Court issued its one-page unpublished opinion on April 24, 2023, denying Mr. Green’s above referenced appeal and affirming the lower court’s rulings without a detailed memorandum of opinion and conclusions of law. However, the courts clerk’s office failed to notify Mr. Green of the issuance of the order. Mr. Green filed a petition for re-hearing and request for extension of time to file that petition on 6-7-2023. Such extension and petition for rehearing were granted. On 6-26-2023, the court denied Mr. Green’s petition for re-hearing. Given the 90-day time frame, a writ of certiorari would be due on or before 9-26-2023. 2. As a disabled pro se petitioner, Mr. Green will not be able to meet this deadline and is respectfully requesting and extension of time to file. Mr. Green has end stage renal failure and requires 11.5 hours of dialysis per day. Mr. Green also suffers from Type 1 Diabetes requiring multiple insulin injections on a daily basis, debilitating swelling of his lower extremities, as well as severe hypertension. Such daily medical treatments are often followed by several days of nausea and vomiting. Added to all of my many illnesses, my family and J were subsequently evicted from the family home. I have tried my level best to complete a writ of certiorari worth of this court within the prescribed timeframe, but due to my many illnesses and the eviction, I am unable to meet the 90-day deadline, thus is in need of more time to complete the petition in as professional manner as possible. 3. The courts failed to address multiple issues of law/equity, multiple case/statute citations raised in the appeal briefs and the petition for re-hearing. The lower courts refused to say how it resolved those issues nor how those cases/statutes didn’t apply. Making it extremely difficult for this pro se litigant to articulate specifically what the lower courts were thinking and to transfer that into clearly erroneous findings and how those findings were achieved. There exists multiple material, factual, and legal matters overlooked by the court. The court’s order conflicts with multiple decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court, this court, multiple another courts of appeals, and none of these conflicts were addressed in the opinion. In particular, Mr. Green’s claims regarding the court’s order/opinion conflicts with multiple decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court, this courts judicial district, other courts of appeals, and none of these conflicts were addressed in the order, nor how stare decisis did not apply when courts are bound to do so. The court is literally silent on why it did not apply Blessing v Freestone, Turner v Rodgers, Stinnie v Holcomb, US. v Sage, Bearden v. Georgia, Lacy v Arvin, Gates v Gates, Anderson v Burson, and the-many others. Silence on these legally binding precedential cases warrants granting certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court. 4. The Fourth Circuit and lower courts decisions are unprecedented with respect to Mr. Greens wholl