Whether the district court and Eighth cir. Erred when they determine that m. Joknson 2ass motion was not retroactive to cases on collateral review, When M. Johnson filed A pro se, motion on direct Appeal, with the same issue as his 22ss motion

Whether mr. Johnson sentence is invalid under +. Apprendi v. New Jersey, because, Mr. Johnson was charge on 84l (A) without A drug quantity that was neither alleged in the indictment nor proven to the jury, mr. Johnson should hare A Constition rigth to be sentince under the statute that he was in dicted on

Ineffective of Counsel, Mr. Johnson Counsel would not file A motion on my behalf after being ask to to have Judge Richard Kopt disqualify or remore him. selffrom mr Johnson case after the things he said, see DCD 220 and DCD 261

whether mr. Johnson Counsel not filing one post sentencing factors set out in 3582 (c) when mr. Johnson sent counse/ 2 &. pages of positive things I've did while in prison

whether Counsel was ineffective by nat filing a motion on powder V. Crack, dispavity, motion that was file at my sentencing hearing, to preserve any and all issues. which might be decided through A change in statutery mandators minimums or sentencing guidelines. related to the treatment of crack for sentencing purposes.

whether the Supreme Court should appoint . Mi.Johnson,

whether 21 4S.( 841 (bE1CC) is.aCoV .ered offense "Under The First STep Act of 2o18.

Whether the district Court and Eighth Circuit erred in determining that Mr. Johnson's 2255 motion was not effective in cases on collateral review filed pro se