Whether the warrantless arrest violated due process and if arresting officers had jurisdiction, whether exculpatory evidence was withheld from the Grand Jury, whether evidence was legally sufficient for charges, whether prosecution time limits were exceeded, whether procedural default rules were violated, whether indigent appeal rights were properly reviewed

, Whether the arrest was warrantless and if the arresting officers had jurisdictiQn to execute an arrest .[Point 1. of my §2254 habeas petition.] A Sixth Amend.U.S. Const, violation.1. 2. Whether the District Attorney withheld exculpable evi dence from the Grand Jury,committing a Brady v. Mary land, 573 U.S. 83(1963), violation.[Point 4.Of my §2254 habeas petition.] See U.S. V.Bagley,S.Ct. 473 U.S. 667. Whether the evidence presented for the CPOFI in the 2° /c ■ {W^eT legally sufficient to satisfy charges . [Point 3.of my §2254 habeas petition.]I 4. Whether the District Attorney exceeded the maximum time it had to prosecute the case under CPL§ : 30.30. [Point 2. °f my .,§2254 habeas petition.] and consequently ,violated . f my Sixth Amend.Right to a speedy trial. 5. Whether the U.S.D.C. Southern District and the C.o.A. 2nd. Circuit :violated*the exempt from procedural default rule pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A.§ 2254(a) .[Pt.1&2 above] . 6. Whether my direct appeal, from a criminal conviction pre sented one or more "not plainly frivolous" issues entitling me,despite my indigence,to have my appeal reviewed and J • (') ■ ifj . i aBs?*" * r determined on the merits by the Court of Appeals —parti cularly in the light of the standards set forth by this Court in Ellis v. United States, 356 U.S. 674, and related cases . Whether the Court of Appeals' refusal to determine my ap peal on the merits constitutes an the Due Process Clause) or an unlawful or an otherwise im proper denial of justice or discrimination against indigent7. persons —particularly when the issues presented by my appQ peal are issues of a type which clearly would be reviewed and determined by the Court of Appeals on the merits in a comparable case presented by a nonindigent appellant. r~ 8. }•j.TC -—7 ^ r * 1 Cl r. £ 3 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.9. Whethe r the Chief Judge ,0).A.L.),by acknowledging that .erxed by dismissing my habeas petition... .." ,but dismissed my judicial misconduct complaint ,abused 'her discretion10. ■ ’i»1 J V :-Sj:the . D{ ♦ J.l,( A. ,S 1)*■ , • S' Uparticularly in the light of the standards (if) Footnotes* = petition (—-vi ' i set forth by this Court in Haines v.Kerner 404 U.S. 519,520-21 and related cases* was a constitutional violation. Whether the evidence pro cured from the warrantless ar rest should have been suppressed in violation of the Due Process Clause pursu-jant to the Fourthteenth . Amend.of the U.S. Const.11. Footnotes Richardson v.U.S. 193 F.3d 545, See e.g. ,Haines v. K e r n e r, 404 “U. S. 519,5 2 0 21, a 1s o Anyanwu taku v. Mpprej,1.5C:JF^3d ^ 1053and-*1054 . ' ■1 • \ l .— .•’T*" '