Whether the Second Circuit Court of Appeals abused its discretion by resurrecting a forfeited statute of limitations issue instead of reviewing the district court's disposition on the merits

(RULE 14.1(a) A. The relief sought has common law analogue vi. B. The All Writs Act empowers federal courts to issue writs "agreeable" to the usages and principles of law 1. C. Justification , necessity and appropriate grounds exist for immediate review of petitioners exibits which are central to his claims 4. UNDER THE U.S. CONSTITUTION . 12. D. Petitioner did not waive his right to counsel 15. E The district court and circuit court both had proper authorization to have reached the merits of petitioners claims. 17. F Whether resentencing was required ,and the petitioner and an attorney presence mandated under both the U.S. Const. & the N.Y. Constitutional provisions outlined herein 17. 1. When a court of appeals raises a procedural impediment to disposition not based on the merits , and disposes of the case on some other grounds why is the district courts disposition in the case considered discounted When it instead chooses to resurrect an issue forfeit by respondents ? 2. Did the second circuit court of appeals abuse, it's discretion by resurrecting the statute of limitations issue , forfeited by the respondents instead of reviewing the district courts disposi tion on the merits ? 3. Will this court grant a hearing on the merits under rule 25 Brief on the merits ? 4. Whether the uncharged and unindicted count of auto Grandlarceny 4th , mitigates towards both the insufficiancy of the indictment combined with the absence of the required final pronouncement of the resentencing odered by the appellate court constitute an arrested judgment or an aquittal ? a. Where does the unindicted count of auto grandlarceny lies if not under the " Arresting Judgment " provisions of the Criminal Appeals Act ? b. Is there a common law analogue and usage of principles of law here that can be enforced under the " All Writs Act 28 U.S.C.A § 1651(a) . i-a lof2 5. Whether the " Complete Miscarriage of justice Standard " is applicable to this case where the scope of the sentencing court in question was beyond its constitutional and statutorial legal authority when it amended sentences in petitioner and Attorney's absence ? 6. Was the Petitioners 14th and 6th amendment rights under the United States violated ? How So ? 7. Whether DOCS/DOCCS .actions & commissions to alter , modify , enhance ,and amend without proper authorization under both federal and hew york states' constitutional and statutorial sentencing laws enough to amount to " False Imprisonment ? " 8. Whether any of the laws or Acts of Congress raised here and in petitioners prior appeals under case No. 23-7694 will be enforced at this time , and preserved for the same reason ? i-a 2of2 TABLE OF CONTENT QUESTIONS PRESENTED i-a TABLE OF CONTENT i