Whether Petitioner should have been allowed to withdraw her plea when she claimed innocence and identity theft allegations existed

(l) Mnether FMrho'ier was induced do tekts <2 p Ed reewent when Judge T Michael Goahnghk *' The Coui^Twe^go through all thiS| tall fecse other CcuMs rue dismissed . feeyVe-gone/ . c>^. "the only roascrn Hz»k a ptot te toosauscrtehtiOVier believed >she Would ge+ <u lesser sentence/ to 4 counts knsrd on Judge T. Michael Sc»longhts statements which (Mthovier /died oh +o toking a pleat ded . See Latter y;Coopsr , Sok U.S. I5fc f I32S5.GE. I3TC,IS2 U Ect. -2d 3^3 C 2012)ogolamtrg H4hc sofe advantage/ a defendant would te/o vece,^ under 4^ p|ea |s q |essersKnk>Ke "Cewphas^^d^) 7 ) heHtsr on Am^usA-;^ 2oz4 ('Jud^eX Miohael Saabn^ht tyictde bK> own onAen<2 4L pf ^2* cure a substantial right viotatiovi twfe fetchoner did nof3h2e proceed With 01 changs okplesf by Videotex United Sfcttes v. Sulb'ieut . kXM Uo on TaU/ wyifcnny , f 2-11 £c? lb . which was done IZtiayc atter^httener t-feta her Motion to lA/ithd rau/ My Pisa As A Violation ot My United States ConstHutiowd Eights AmzndnientOne, tvwrHnj SiKth ? Foiutonth, Btctxoli okCtri ’itoct) P^^ectdotol Mfeconducd) fed. R. Cnnt. P. RufeIl/ teoR Mq,^ Tuly^yZOZi) Rdi'hone*should h^ue been ^llowsd -fc> VvHhctow her plesi? (s; Whether Peti-hcner hcu© shewn prejudice/ -fivm the use oHhe video ^nd teleconference/ dunrig fbhticme*s change ok pfea us Petrhcrner would nob have proceeded wHhHnergujtfy p|<aa tf-^he waited -feappear ih peiscm ifetee disthct' courtmade/ more ofedetoted Endings -firr the need okfeteconfe?cnce/ United Sjcttes y. Domiyg4ie^ todtof IZ4 s cE Z^33 (SR L. 5d2d IStCzcoE) “ The point-. . ■ te to enquire whether -the tfevrorl 7 Would have made theditfeienee requited by the standard °treciso-na.k>le^ prolGwhility • '*) and herplea should have been allowed -fe wtthdnsuA/^ (4) (ether tbtitwhsr should have laxs) alotefe wittomw her nfei Whensho claimed her innocencete identity thefe as she was approredto open up d corporate cttd'ik card ter fhe inon-p^Kcipo lotion by Cham'mn leuoA CWi who died two imohtto abler approving corpoiate accoank so -to>e wt?s tao ttokcard tvaud or identitythe-tb and fetitonerShould have been afloat to WithdravV her plea? (E) Wheths/'isfelute ok limitations b ajuhsdicteml regurnsvnent ttot eainncdVe waived by a pter agn5&nr?nt as fee allegM enme fer>k place on Mctieh 3$, X<oi2_and wa^-chavcpd years I ater^ fe e skrtute of-tim ’itzThcms. is a ‘junsdichcmal requirement that cannot be waived, ^nd Conn'ctvm should ho overturned (Jahn R.. Sand GfizxveJ Ga, v. United Sfcates, S5S 2_u.su SO (33-2,4 I XS S.Cr. t.Ed. 2d (2COS^/ ' ' (S.) WhcAW when Unitel <c^^ > Attorney £ AUS/V') ^ic^ued ^^uosj' 4~he 3-level hcdue=hcnn t which in pleci <^veernen-|r wi4ta A US A would toecpvcn "tome 'feraco^aHce ot res.pons.iLji I i4y ?