ThIS CASE pRESENMPRtANt NATONWI SUESCONCERNiNg WhAtCONSESA
UNDER 28 U.S. C.$2AS5. THEQUESTION,
Of WhAT CONSTiTUTES "FUNCAMENTAL FAiRNESS" hAS GONE UNANSWEREd SINCE thE
ENACTMENT OF S aASS. ThIS pETITiON REPRESENTS AN OPPORTUNITy FOR thE SUPREME
COURT tO PROVIdE ABRiIght TiNe thATdEFiNES thE MEANING OF A" FAiR tRIAl" AND
PROCEEDING UNDER THE IAW.

DId CONgRESS SEEk tO dEPRIVE A pERSON of thEiR RighT tO"DUE PROCESS oflAW"
tO PROVE "ACTUAl iNNOCENCE" pURSUANT TO Q8 U.S.C.$ dA53 (C)(2), iN /IghTOP this
COURt'S RUiNg iN MCQUIGGIN V. PERKINS, 133 5.Ct.1924 (2013)?

Dd CONRESS iNtENd FOR thE lOWER COURT tO VIOlA A PEiIONER Fifh
AMENdMENt "DUE PROcEss"Rights by OvERlOOkiNg thE fACt thAt pEtHHONER
ASSERTEd A COLORAbLE ClAiM COGNiZAbLE FOR RE/IEF UNdER SECTION BASS(a)?

Dd CoNgSiERy A i AANARity e U.D
3
•
COURTS, O ERMINE FOR tHEMSELVES WHAT "ENAPMEN"MEANS UNDER THE /AW N
ligh of this COURt's RUliNg iN ROViAOV. UNitEStAES, 353 U.S.5 (1956)?

D CONgRES N thE OERCUR hE jR VERRUA
dETERMINE POR THEMSE/VES, WhICh AIFORD PLEA CONVIEHIONS QUALiFIEd FOR ENHANCEMENT PURPOSES PURSUANT I U.S.C.S85I ANd thIS COURT'S RUlING iN SHEPARD
V. UNITEDSTATES, 544 U.S. 13 (A005)?

⑤ Did CONGRESS iNtENd FOR ACiFiZEN
ACCUSEd OFAViOlATiON Of 2lU.S.C.
§841tObE dENisd hE"EffECtiVEAsSiSANCE oFCOUNSElAtA CRiTiCAlstAgE Of
iRSEIP
ThE tRiAl PRO CEEDiNg FORCINg tHEACCUSE

what-constitutes-a-fundamentally-just-resentencing-under-28-usc-2255