Whether the warrantless arrest violated due process and whether exculpatory evidence was withheld from the Grand Jury

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED _ ; = . 1._ Whether the arrest was warrantless and if the arresting oo a officers had jurisdictign to execute an arrest.[Point 1. ~ , . of my §2254 habeas petition.] A Sixth Amend.U.S. Const. — o | . 2. Whether the District Attorney withheld exculpable evi. ns | . ‘| .dencé from the Grand: Jury,committing ‘a Brady v. Mary~ re ; land, 373 U.S. 83(1963) ,violationz[Point. 4.0f my §2254 ; | _ habeas petition.] See U.S. ¥.Bagley,S.Ct. 473 U.S. 667. i. : 3... | Whether the evidence presented for. the CPOFI in the 2°. . weré legally sufficient to satisfy charges.[Point 3.0f a ; ly my §2254 habeas petition. ] oo ; _ se C 7 ; a 4. Whether the District Attorney ‘exceeded the maximum time a a . 7 it had’ to prosecute the case under CPL§ 30.30, [Point 2.. es _of my §2254 habeas petition.] and consequently ,violated Bo : my Sixth Amend.Right to a speedy trial. ' oe : . 5. Whether the U.S.D.C. Southern District and the C.o,A. 2nd. , : Circuit violated'the. exempt from procedural default cule! a pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A.§ 2254(a) .[ Pt.1&2 above]. oo. 6. Whether ‘my direct appeal. from a criminal conviction prewee! ‘sented one or more "not plainly frivolous" issues entitl. "to an ' ing me,despite my indigence, to have my appeal reviewed and oo. t ; . y . : , . . oT determined on the merits by the Court of Appeals—parti_ . cularly in the light of the standards set forth by this Gourt in Ellis v. United States,356 U.S. 674,and related . cases, — , 7. Whether the Court of Appeals' refusal to determine my appeal on the merits constitutes an unconstitutional (Under the Due Process Clause) or an unlawful or an otherwise improper denial of justice or discrimination against indigent . no : when the issues presented by my ape: , ; ; peal are issues of a type which clearly would be reviewed : . ; and determined by the Court of Appeals on the merits in a 7 comparable case presented by a nonindigent appellant. : ; 8 Whether the Judicial Council, by rejecting my peti® for re -view of the Chief Judge's Order ,dismissing my complaints, , against D.J.(A.S.) and M.J.(KHP),by ‘rubber-stamping' the . . _ decision,and refusing to issue an Order pursuant to Rule a ; ; "19(c)and (e) of the rules for Judicial Misconduct and Dis0 -ability,was unconstitutional. ; 9. Whether the D.J.(A.S.), by discarding the M.J.(KHP)'s R&R . , and denying my habeas petition violated rule 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(c)(4) of the Rules for F.R.C.P. — ; : 10. Whether the Chief Judge, (D.A.L.),by acknowledging that __ , . the D.J.(A.S.) "erred by dismissing my habeas petition... an ~ .." ,but dismissed my judicial misconduct complaint , abused . her discretion ~particularly in the light of the standards Footnotes* = petition en . ae set forth by this Court in Haines v.Kerner 404 U.S. 519,520-21 , "and related cases‘,was a constitutional violation. _ oe oo 11. ' Whether the evidence pro cured from the warrantless ar_ rest should have been suppressed in violation of the Due : ; : : Process Clause. pursuant to the Fourthteenth Amend.of . ' the U.S. Const. a Co ct _:.. Footnotes * = Richardson v.U.S. 193 F.3d 545,See e.g.,Haines v. oe ; : Kerner, 404 U.S.519,520-21,also Anyanwutaku v. : sees. we. Moore,151 (F.3d 1053and 1054. | ee oo 12. Whether the sentence of 5 1/2years to years is a-con-_ : : ae stitutional violation of-the New York Sentencing Guide| . ; os, line. and another example,of a biaz. judge,abusing her _ . os : discretionary powers,against an indigent defendant. 7 oo, ; (iii) ae Co