Whether the Court of Appeals abused its discretion by using Ashcroft to improperly affirm the district court's dismissal order of a §1983 malicious prosecution complaint in violation of the Supreme Court's Thompson decision

In this pro se case Aleksandr Stoyanov received the 8/1/24 judgment of the 4thCircuit Court of Appeals with the right to file petition for writ of certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court or to file a petition for rehearing and/or petition for rehearing en banc within 14 calendar days after entry of judgment which was received on 8/5/24. Aleksandr Stoyanov had chosen to file a petition for rehearing en banc that was denied on 9/3/24. Accordingly, Petitioner has the right to file petition for writ of certiorari in the U. S. Supreme Court because: (1) a material factual and legal matter was overlooked or ignored by the 4th-Circuit Court of Appeals; (2) the opinion of the 4th-Circuit Court conflicts with the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court and the conflicts were not addressed, although, the Circuit Court panel Judges Niemeyer, Agee, and Heytens found that the Maryland U.S. District Court Judge Julie R. Rubin was wrong in her decision to dismiss Petitioner ’s claims and the entire Complaint as the Circuit Court Judges specifically stated: "... we affirm the district court ’s dismissal order, albeit on alternate grounds, ” which are contrary to the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Thompson u. Clark. 596 U. S. 36, 39 (2022), and facts stated in the Petitioner ’s Informal Brief, Complaint, Affidavit of Facts signed by Petitioner under oath, in addition to the undisputed evidence submitted by the Plaintiff to the U.S. District Court to support the Affidavit of Facts and the claims under 42 U.S.C. §1983 of malicious prosecution by the Maryland Howard County police and the Howard l County government officials violating Petitioner ’s Constitutional Rights (specifically the 4th Amendment rights) as stated in the Plaintiffs Complaint. Also, the 10th-Circuit Court of Appeals in Bulloch v. United States, 763 F. 2D 1115, 1121 (10th-Cir. 1985), found that: "Fraud upon the court is fraud which is directed to the judicial machinery itself. It is where the judge has not performed [her] judicial function — thus where the impartial functions of the court have been directly corrupted." So "Fraud upon the court" makes void the orders t and judgments. It is also clear and well -settled law that any "fraud upon the court" vitiates the entire proceeding. Furthermore, Thompson supersedes the case of Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556, 662, 679 (2009), which was wrongly applied by the 4th-Circuit Court to the Petitioner ’s case and improperly used to affirm the district court ’s wrong and corrupt dismissal order in addition to the denial of Petitioner ’s Motion for Sanctions for Defendants ’ Fraudulent 7/19/23 Submission. Indeed, the 4-th Circuit Court of Appeals unpublished per curium opinion affirming the district court ’s corrupt dismissal order is wrong because the 4th Circuit ’s mistaken opinion contradicts the U. S. Supreme Court ’s decision in Thompson and the fifteen issues based on facts that are identified in the Petitioner ’s Informal Brief submitted to the 4-th Circuit Court of Appeals. In the Informal Brief, Petitioner states all fifteen issues supported by irrefutable facts for each issue and arguments supporting each valid claim under §1983 for malicious prosecution. (3) This case involves one or more questions of exceptional importance addressing the violations of the Constitutional Rights by the government officials li without any probable cause for criminal prosecution with malicious motive to retaliate for asserting fourth amendment constitutional rights. Consequently, Petitioner files petition for writ of certiorari in the U. S. Supreme Court to resolve the following first question: Whether the Court of Appeals abused its discretion and overlooked the Supreme Court decision in Thompson case by using Ashcroft case to improperly affirm the district court ’s corrupted wrong dismissal order of the Petitioner ’s Complaint to recover damages for claims under 42 U. S. C. §1983 of malicious prosecution by the Defendants acting in violation of substantive