Petitioner Sanders, contends the Ninth Appellate District Court, Cause # 09-10-00047--CR, Beaumont, Texas, Erred by ruling the Trial Court of Polk County, Texas, for the 411th Judicial District, Livingston, Texas, 77351 did not err by denying his request to instruct the jury on Manslaughter (Texas Penal Code §19.04(a)(b)); and Criminally Negligent Homicide (Texas Penal Code §19.05(a)(b)). Did the omitted instructions prevent (disallow) the juror's to convict on the lesser-included charge, or even acquit on the finding of accidental? See; Appendix - Dissents.

Petitioner Sanders contends the omitted jury instructions and the Fifth Circuits finding of no prejudice, and the Fifth Circuits reliance on the State Courts statement on Direct Appeal, significantly misstated even the slanted version of the facts.

Did the Fifth Circuit err in deferring to the State Court's finding that Mr. Sanders was not entitled to a lesser-included offense jury instruction? and in order to receive such instructions he must admit to "Murder" to receive them?

Did the Fifth Circuit misapply the requirement on the lesser-included jury instructions?

Is the Fifth Circuit's decision in conflict with other circuits?

There was sufficient record evidence warranting an instruction on the lesser and that would permit a jury to rationally conclude guilt of the lessers. The Fifth Circuit's decision was wrong in holding that Petitioner Sanders' Constitutional rights weren't violated. Additionally, the majority's opinion was contrary to, 1 or involved an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. Further, the:Fifth Circuits decision rested upon an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State's Court proceedings. Seea; Keeble v.. U.S., 93 S.Ct. 1993 (1982)(The lesser-included offense doctrine is well-established). Hooper v. Evans, 102 S.Ct. 2049 (1982) (Due process requires that a lesser-included instruction be given when the evidence warrants). Williams v. Taylor, 120 S.Ct. 1495 (2000).(Unreasonable application of federal law is when a court has misapplied a governing legal principle to a set of facts different from those of the case in which the principle was announced).

Whether the trial court erred in denying the defendant's request for jury instructions on the lesser-included offenses of manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide