In United States v. Olano, this Court held that, under the fourth prong of plain error review, "[t]he Court of Appeals should correct a plain forfeited error affecting substantial rights if the error 'seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.'" 507 U.S. 725, 736 (1993). To meet that standard, is it necessary, as the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals required, that the error be one that "would shock the conscience of the common man, serve as a powerful indictment against our system of justice, or seriously call into question the competence or integrity of the district judge?" In this case it is the Appellate court as well that comes into question, citing cases that argues against itself.

This is a case of first impression that not only raises an important, unique, and interesting question affecting not only the integrity of our judicial system, but also implicates the Due Process provisions of the Fifth and Fourteenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

1. In a standard of review as used by appellate courts, to review discretionary decisions of lower trial courts, the appellate courts will find that the trial court abused its discretion if the decision was the result of a mischaracterization of the trial court record, was made in plain error, and the erroneous mischaracterized facts are then relied upon in its findings and conclusions. However, what is the abuse of discretion standard used for review, in a case where the appellate court itself, upon reviewing a trial court's record, picks out an incorrect material fact, involving an important triggering date in the trial court's record, a date that was never raised or briefed on appeal, then erroneously places this out of order triggering date in and at a point in the record six (6) months later, totally ignoring upon advisement, the true triggering date, and then, in reliance upon this incorrect triggering date, mistakenly imputes the incorrect triggering date into its findings and conclusions, thereby creating an error of such a nature, that it impacts every aspect of the case, and to leave it uncorrected would result in damage to the integrity, reputation, and fairness of the judicial process?

2. What is the abuse of discretion standard used for review, where the appellate court ignores its own well-established directions and guidelines regarding rules of professional conduct, and where a district court judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned where the trial court deliberately ignores a wholly briefed and crucial judicial misconduct matter, where counsels are more likely to obfuscate the court with fraud than enlighten the court?

3. What is the abuse of discretion standard used for review, where the appellate court ignores its own well established directions and guidelines regarding a the trial court which rendered its decisions based upon facts that were not supported by the record, and the subsequent decision resulted in plain error, of the kind that a reviewing court supposedly and normally seeks to avoid?

Whether the appellate court abused its discretion in mischaracterizing the trial court record and relying on erroneous facts