The Court of Appeals has adopted and applied a "Fifth Circuit Principle" that "changes in the discretionary. ules, affecting. parole suitability cannot violate the ex post facto clause". A principle cited and applied in State and Federal courts within the Fifth circuit; Which has led to the Fifth Circuit Court (itself) issuing conflicting legal and evidentiary review standards on identical question for review. The First and Second Questions presented for review are:

1st) Did the Fifth Circuit err by applying a "circuit principle" that "rules affecting eligibility may violate the [ex post facto clause but discretionary rules affecting suitability do not"; (i. e., in light of "Principle" announced in GARNER v.JONES, 120 S.Ct 1362,1369-70) ?

2nd) Did the Fifth Circuit err by different panels imposing two different legal and evidentiary standards on identical questions presented for review; (ie., where two previous panels demanded concise evidence of Parole Board Member Designation based upon Texas Parole statute or Board Policy; And a third Panel demanded evidence of "randomly selected panel" not a part of Texas Parole Statutes or Board's Policy/practices) ?

Petitioner was convicted -.under a 19.65-1975 Texas Parole Board 3-Member suitability determination statute. He has committed no acts during his 43½ years of incarceration to warrant a change in his legal status. Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles conducted his 2013 review process under a retroactive 1993-2004 statute which was also replaced by -.-another statute in 2005 The 2005 Version (a) removed Petitioner's offense from the Face of the statute to eliminate parolability; and (b) its subsections specifically instructs: "an offense committed before the effective date of This ACT is covered by the Law in effect when the offense was committed". Petitioner achieved the parole suitability requirements imposed under his offense date statute during his 2013 review process. The Third and Fourth Questions presented are:

3rd) Did the Fifth Circuit err in failing to conduct "de novo review" of COA Briefed Issue that retroactive statute had been repealed and rendered inapplicable to Petitioner's 1975 offense ?

4th) Did the Fifth Circuit err in declaring ex post facto viola tion did not occur when the Board used retroactive statute to prolong prison stay by denying prisoner parole suitability achievement under statutory requirements in effect on his offense date; Where prisoner can show under implementation of "new rule" by the Board's (own) "Member's designation Policy' he would have achiev'ed parole suitability had his offense date rule been applied; (i e., Where prisoner - under facts particular to his case - made objective evidentiary showing of lesser period of incarceration ultilizing analytical tools instructed -by GARNER, 120 S.Ct.@.. 1369-70)?

Did the Fifth Circuit err in applying a 'Fifth Circuit Principle' that discretionary parole rules do not violate ex post facto clause