Whether a federal appellate judge who was never properly designated under 28 U.S.C. § 294 may lawfully adjudicate a post-conviction 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, where the absence of such designation is confirmed by official federal court records, and whether any judgment rendered in such a proceeding is void for lack of jurisdiction under Article III of the Constitution

1. Whether a federal appellate judge who was never properly designated under 28 U.S.C. § 294 may lawfully adjudicate a post-conviction 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, where the absence of such designation is confirmed by official federal court records, and whether any judgment rendered in such a proceeding is void for lack of jurisdiction under Article III of the Constitution. 2. Whether Judge Richard J. Sullivan, having presided over Petitioner ’s underlying criminal trial, violated 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(1) and due process by adjudicating the petitioner ’s subsequent 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, despite having personal knowledge of disputed facts and an apparent interest in defending his own prior rulings. 3. Whether the failure of the government to ever obtain or present a valid forfeiture order in connection with the seizure and sale of Petitioner ’s real properties —despite multiple searches and seizures —violates the Fifth Amendment ’s due process protections and requires vacatur of the associated criminal and civil penalties. REFERENCE TO OPINIONS BELOW The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit entered a final order denying Petitioner ’s mandamus petition on May 1, 2025. The order of the Court of Appeals is reported at, and is attached to this Petition as