OHAuihotiJZ£cl ££COMol OR,ttl„ J^lcl i%£ ±iflj P.lRCut'f' doozt ^ Appeals k.fKR u)li£N /
CouRis CONS^R u/nJ of P$iitioN£US ff&tofJ AS AH
SUdaBSSivB. U<£.C" U£SS 7 Aud Hisn efe/w/W 7%e ps/z/zW &£. fafl/MJ
fsdzep/
Sf^tebTAiN pB£-T;11 ftoHioR t zA'i'iotfj ushzni p sti tfoNS R js A
pfciSo ne& wd £9 U.S.C.§<2&W 0>)0)At<ol C^C 3)only Rzyuise
fRisotUTRS fittNj 3i9 U.S.C.iteS« fOet/ovs to O^'M
AuU^R/^tfoNS A SS.C-&H d o£ SUdCRSsi\i£ rtef/oN ?to o
33id 'S& dineuif osoRp 'ih Aoiho^ity t>y fni\!n<j To A$>iK To H>c
' steict eoHstuvct;ON of is? U.5.C.SUI by HIovImj
PKosc-ajf;o» ouJtR ojho hAdAvy
Avd All e,v/ Stjhts Rtsfo^j byiU cohvS^ £t,i e wM
W^ aI cU »,of e¥w«'y f*™
thAf- Hif mAy **<& ship, f/?ANSf>oRt) possess
-f/RBARmS PAN
:ck Hisksqu
££C£ /Vie£* •

Did the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals err when it affirmed the District Court's construing of Petitioner's Motion as an unauthorized second or successive 28 U.S.C. §2255, and then denied the petition for failing to obtain prefiling authorization, when petitioner is a federal prisoner and 28 U.S.C §§2254 and 2255 only require state prisoners filing 28 U.S.C. §2254 Motions to obtain prefiling Authorizations for a second or successive motion?