ON JANUARY 10, 2018 THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT DENIED PETITIONER'S REQUEST FOR EN BANC REHEARING STATING THAT; THE JUSTICES DID NOT TAKE A VOTE. THE QUESTION(S) PRESENTED FOR REVIEW ARE FOUR-FOLD: FIRST,. HAS THE REFUSAL TO PROPERLY ADJUDICATE THIS CASE, WITH A FINDING OF FACTS AND A CONCLUSION OF LAW, BY. THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, ON (4) DIFFERENT APPEAL(S), CONCERNING THIS (2011) BANKRUPTCY, PRESENTED A PREJUDICE AND BIAS AGAINST PETITIONER PRO SE'? SECOND, IF THERE WAS A BIAS, WOULD THEY THEN BE DISQUALIFIED IN GRANTING OR DENYING EN BANC CONSIDERATION, OF THIS CASE? THIRD, IF SO, WOULD THESE ACTIONS HAVE VIOLATED PETITIONER PRO SE' 1ST 5TH AND 14TH AMENDMENT RIGHTS? FOURTH, WOULD THIS REQUIRE A CHANGE IN RULE 46(C).

ON OCTOBER 3, 2017 THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE. ELEVENTH CIRCUIT RULED TO DENY PETITIONER PRO SE' (DEC. 2013) FILED LAWSUIT OF CASE NO. 1615117, ON GROUNDS OF THE (2011) CONFIRMED BANKRUPTCY HAVING RES JUDICATA EFFECT AND PETITIONER'S CASE DID NOT MEETING THE LEVEL OF 281331 ADJUDICATION, DESPITE THERE BEING NEW FACTS AND EVIDENCE THAT WAS PRESENTED IN AN AMENDED WITH ADDITIONAL FINDINGS, RULE 52(B) OF THE FILED LAWSUIT BY PETITIONER PRO SE, THAT CONTAINED A DISCOVERY OF A FALSE CLAIM THAT WAS INSERTED BY STATE OFFICIALS FROM THE ALABAMA DEPT. OF REVENUE FOR WHICH PETITIONER WAS DENIED DUE PROCESS -IN THAT (2011) BANKRUPTCY, OF PROVING THAT HE DID NOT OWE THIS DEBT, ALONG WITH THE FACT THAT THESE NEW FACTS AND EVIDENCE WAS NOT MADE KNOWN IN ANY OF THE APPEALS FROM THE (2011) BANKRUPTCY THAT STARTED FROM THE DISTRICT COURT AND ESCALATED TO THIS U.S. SUPREME COURT, WHEREBY THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT HAS MADE NO MENTION OF THESE NEW FACTS AND EVIDENCE IN THEIR RULING. THE QUESTIION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW ARE THREE-FOLD; FIRST, DID THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT GREATLY ERR IN NOT ADJUDICATING THESE FACTS, WHEN IT WAS BROUGHT TO THEIR ATTENTION? SECOND, DID THESE NEW FACTS AND EVIDENCE SPOIL THE RES JUDICATA EFFECT OF THE (2011) BANKRUPTCY AND ALL APPEALS THERE AFTER, PRIOR TO THE FILING OF THE DECEMBER 31,2013. FILED LAWSUIT? AND THIRD, DID THESE ACTIONS VIOLATE PETITIONER PRO SE' 1ST IF 5TH, AND 14TH AMENDMENT RIGHTS.

ON FEBRUARY 21, 2018, THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT RULED IN CASE NO. 1

Has the refusal to properly adjudicate this case by the Eleventh Circuit presented prejudice and bias against the petitioner pro se?