HAS THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ENTERED A DECISION WHICH VIOLATES STATUTE, NAMELY SECTION 35 OF THE JUDICIARY ACT OF 1789, 1 STAT. 92 (CODIFIED IN 28 U.S.C. § 1654), THUS VIOLATING PETITIONER'S STATUTORY RIGHT OF SELF-REPRESENTATION AND IN SO DOING, SO FAR DEPARTED FROM THE ACCEPTED AND USUAL COURSE OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS AS TO CALL FOR AN EXERCISE OF THIS COURT'S JUDICIAL POWER TO PREVENT A FUNDAMENTAL MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE.

II. DOES THE RECORD CLEARLY CONTRADICT THE LOWER COURT'S BASIS FOR DENYING PETITIONER'S APPEAL. THIS NOT ONLY REPRESENTS A CONFLICT WITH SEVERAL HOLDINGS OF THIS HONORABLE COURT, BUT ALSO THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, THUS CREATING A MANIFEST INJUSTICE IF NOT CORRECTED.

III. DOES THE UNSOLICITED APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL AND THE SUBSEQUENT AFFIRMATION OF THE DISTRICT COURT'S DENIAL OF PETITIONER'S HABEAS MOTION PREJUDICE THE PETITIONER CREATING A CONFLICT AMONG DECISIONS OF THIS HONORABLE COURT AS WELL AS CREATING A NEED FOR REVIEW BY THIS COURT TO PREVENT A FUNDAMENTAL MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE.

Whether the lower court erred in dismissing petitioner's claims for lack of standing and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted