Questions concerning U.S. Court of Appeals decisions in conflict with the Supreme Court of the United States decisions and case law and the U.S. Court of Appeals - 5th Ckt. in conflict with other U.S. Court of Appeals, including the 2nd Ckt., and concerning the 6th and 14th Amendments of the U. S. Constitution.

1. Should the lower federal courts be allowed to continue to violate the Supreme Court of the United States' case law and deny Pro-Se applicants' relief when their petitions have Fundamental Miscarriage of Justice claims and violations of the 6th and 14th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution claims; especially, when such claims can lead to a possibly actually innocent petitioner being illegally imprisoned?

2. Should an applicant or petitioner be barred (denied) justice and relief for Fundamental Miscarriage of Justice and U.S. Constitutional violation claims; especially, when lower federal courts and state courts do so through procedural rules and laws which are lesser and contrary to the U.S. Constitution?

3. When a petitioner needs Counsel or an Evidentiary Hearing in order to prevent a Fundamental Miscarriage of Justice, should the Court appoint Counsel or order an Evidentiary Hearing?

4. When a petitioner does not request Counsel or an Evidentiary Hearing for claims of Actual Innocence, or Fundamental Miscarriage of Justice, or a 6th or 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution violation, does the court not have the right and even the obligation to uphold the U.S. Constitution, to do justly, and appoint counsel or order the lower court to grant an Evidentiary Hearing and/or other relief or assistance to ensure fundamental justice and to uphold the U.S. Constitution?

5. Does the Supreme Court of the United States' own procedural rules prevent justice and deny U. S. Constitutional rights, by procedurally time barring the Supreme Court of the United States clerk from accepting and filing "Petition for Writ of Certiorari " or other Motions, etc.; especially, pro se indigent applicants with claims of Fundamental Miscarriage of Justice and U.S. Constitutional violations; particularly, when wrongful imprisonment may have possibly resulted for an actually innocent person?

6. Is the 5th Ckt. U.S. Court of Appeals in conflict with the 2nd Ckt. U.S. Court of Appeals' decision in U.S. vs Rosillo. 853F.2d 1062, 1066»6f (1988) because the Trial court did not make an "on-record" account of medications before entering a guilty plea and the 5th Ckt. has not reversed this error?

7. Should the Trial Court after the defendant signs it, by simply making an "on-record" account of doing so; especially, by illegally changing the defendant's plea to "guilty"?

8. Should the trial court be allowed to enter an "Uncognizable Plea" as "Guilty"?

9. Will a Fundamental Miscarriage of Justice result in failure to entertain claims (Schlup v. Delo), when the petitioner is denied the "necessity" of a lawyer (Evitts v. Lucev - the Supreme Court of the United States) to prepare and present claims of Ineffective Assistance of Counsel on Appeal.?

10. Does the "necessity" of a lawyer apply to Pro Se applicants with possible grounds for a "Petition for

Should lower federal courts be allowed to violate Supreme Court case law and deny pro-se applicants relief for fundamental-miscarriage-of-justice claims and U.S.-constitution-violations