Zonta Tavarus Ellison v. United States
DueProcess FifthAmendment Punishment
DID THE APPEALS COURT INFRINGE UPON PETITIONER'S FIFTH AMENDMENT DUE PROCESS RIGHTS BY DENYING PETITIONER A FAIR NOTICE OF THE COURT's ORDER DENYING A C.O.A., AND THUS CIRCUMVENTING PETITIONER'S RIGHTS TO FILE A TIMELY REHEARING EN BANC AND WRIT OF CERTIORARI, DESPITE PETITIONER'S TIMELY MOTION TO REOPEN TIME TO FILE APPEAL PURSUANT TO FED. R. APP. P. RULE 4(a)(6)?
DID THE LOWER COURTS VIOLATE THE PETITIONER'S FIFTH AMENDMENT DUE PROCESS RIGHTS BY DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR RELIEF PURSUANT TO FED. R.CIV. P. 60(b)(6) AND 10(c), WHEN THE PETITIONER ASSERTED A COLORABLE CLAIMc0GNIZABLE FOR RELIEF UNDER SECTION § 2255(a), PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(3) AND UNITED STATES V. MCRAE, 793 F. 3d. 392 (2015 U.S. APP. LEXIS 12029)?
WAS IT A SUBSTANTIAL VIOLATION OF PETITIONER'S SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO HAVE COMPULSORY PROCESS FOR OBTAINING A WITNESS FAVORABLE FOR HIS DEFENSE, WHEN THE LOWER COURTS DENIED SUCH ON THE BASIS THAT THE WITNESS IS A GOVERNMENT PAIN INFORMANT IN LIGHT OF ROVIARO V. UNITED STATES, 353 U.S. 53 (1956)?
WAS IT A SUBSTANTIAL VIOLATION OF PETITIONER'S FIFTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO NOT BE DEPRIVED OF LIFE, LIBERTY , OR PROPERTY, WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW, WHEN THE LOWER COURTS DENIED THE PETITIONER OF SUCH DUE TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES LEADING UP TO THE PETITIONER'S ARREST IN OF MCQUIGGIN V. PERKINS, 133 S. Ct. 1924 (2013)?
WAS IT A SUBSTANTIAL VIOLATION OF PETITIONER'S SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO HAVE THE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL FOR HIS DEFENSE AT TRIAL, WHEN THE PETITIONER WAS FORCED INTO TRIAL, AND TRIAL COUNSEL WITHDREW AND WAS APPOINTED AS STAND BY COUNSEL IN LIGHT OF STRICKLAND V. WASHINGTON, 466 U.S., 668 (1984)?
DID THE LOWER COURTS INFRINGE UPON THE DENIAL OF PETITIONER'S SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO A TRIAL BY JURY AND FURTHER SUBJECT PETITIONER TO COLLATERAL CONSEQUENCES IN ACCEPTING PETITIONER'S 2010 ALFORD PLEA CONVICTION TO ENHANCE PETITIONER'S INSTANT SENTENCE IN LIGHT OF SHEPARD V. UNITED STATES, 544 U.S 13 (2005)?
Did the appeals court infringe upon petitioner's Fifth Amendment due-process rights