When record[ p.3 Opinion and order 4/14/17] show Respondents deviated from[APPENDIX A Ex 126 p..6 -ORS 163.105(2)(b)(4)(1985), Ex 105 p.15'7] due process judicial procedure of division 32 to treat Petitioner differently than others similarly situated e .g adding division 62 burdens to deny created liberty interest of 2 year interval petitions for counsel representation do U.S. courts possess authority under rule of evidence 403 to exclude evidence confusing this issue?

Is U.S. District court of Oregon to apply Oregon law in boundaries it sits in a manner respecting equal protection of federal law encompassing mandatory language of state statute, Fe/ce v. Fielder 974 F2d 1484,1492 (77 Cir 1992), when U.S. Citizen, Petitioner, claims due process and equal protection of state created liberty interest under 14" amendment rights under U.S. Constitution violated?

When state court directs Respondents to only use records and documents of Petitioner in future consideration of parole/ release and not other inmates named Haynes[APPENDIX H Ex 128 p.2, Ex 127 p.2] do U.S. courts possess authority under rule of evidence 403 to exclude evidence of other inmates named Haynes?

When U.S. District court holds no jurisdiction to deny consideration of counselunder Federal Rules of Appellant Procedure 22-1(d) but issues Order denying U.S. Citizen's, Petitioner's, right is due process. void and order invalid?

When U.S. Appeals court holds sole jurisdiction under Federal Rules of Appellant Procedure 22-1(d) but allows invalid order to bar . Petitioner's, a U.S. Citizen's, right of consideration of counsel is due process void?

When there is a diversity of state law creating different liberty interests under mandatory language of state statutes under equal protection of federal law to that fact does the U.S. Supreme court concur U.S. District court of Oregon are to apply Oregon law and not California parole statutes within boundaries it sits in a manner respecting Petitioner's 10 amendment rights under U.S. Constitution?

When Habeas corpus relief to a lesser form of custody is available to Petitioner under federal law, Nettles v. Grounds 788 F 3d 992, 998 (9thCir. 2014), and mandatory language of state statute by Oregon law[APPENDIX A Ex 126 p.6] for Petitioner, U.S. Citizen, do U.S. courts possess authority under rule of evidence 403 to exclude all evidence that artificially inflates his custody level to Medium II institutions whereby court is empowered authority to provide effective relief?

Whether the record shows that the respondents deviated from the applicable legal standards