1. Section 1447(d) of Title 28 of the United States Code expressly provides that an order remanding a case that was removed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1442 or 28 U.S.C. §1443 is reviewable by appeal or otherwise. This wise Court in BP PLLC v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore a case involving removal under 28 U.S.C. §1442, affirmed: "The Fourth Circuit erred in holding that it was powerless to consider all of the defendants ' grounds for removal under § 1447(d). " (141 S. Ct. 1532, 1538 (2021).

Whether reliance on a holding by the Court in Things Remembered, Inc. v. Petrarca instructing appellate courts to read 28 U.S.C. §1447(d) in pari materia with 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) would prohibit an appellate court to consider all of the defendant 's grounds for removal under § 1447(d) in which the removing party premises removal under the civil rights removal statute 28 U.S.C. §1443 or the federal officer statute 28 U.S.C. §1442.

2. The Court instructed appellate courts to read 28 U.S.C. §1447(d) in pari materia with 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). This holding was specific to a remand decision within a remand order. The Court illustrated this holding in Thermtron Prodcuts, Inc. v. Hermandsdorfer. The Court reversed the Sixth Circuit decision of not having jurisdiction due to the district court 's remand decision regarding a "heavy docket " which was argued not eligible for review. The Court disagreed and held that "heavy docket " was not barred from review when 28 U.S.C. §1447(d) is read in pari materia with 28 U.S.C. §1447(c).

Whether a remand order by a district court that is "clearly erroneous " would be barred from appellate review when 28 U.S.C. §1447(d) is read in pari materia with 28 U.S.C. §1447(c).

3. The Court in the landmark case Georgia u. Rachel held:

[S]ince the federal district court remanded the present case without a hearing, the defendants as yet have had no opportunity to establish that...the defendants right to removal under §1443(1) will be clear...upon such finding, it will be apparent that the conduct of the defendants is 'immunized from persecution ' in any court, and the federal district court must then sustain the removal and dismiss the prosecutions (384 U.S. 780 (1966)).

No evidence hearing was held for the Petitioner after having referenced in the Notice of Removal the Civil Rights Act of 1964 fourteen times, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 eighteen times, 28 U.S.C. §1443 eleven times, 42 U.S.C. §1983 fifteen times, 42 U.S.C. §1985 twenty-three times, the word "retaliation " eight times, the phrase "civil rights " twenty times. On appeal with the Fourth Circuit the Petitioner referenced the Civil Rights Act of 1964 nineteen times,

Whether reliance on a holding by the Court in Things Remembered, Inc. v. Petrarca would prohibit an appellate court to consider all of the defendant's grounds for removal under §1447(d)