Whether or not during evaluations, decisions, and judgments, the Alabama Trial, State Courts, are in complete contradiction to this United States Supreme Court's Sixth Amendment Constitutional Law where United Petitioner has shown, and the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has admitted, that (1) Petitioner's only opportunity to raise Ineffective Assistance of Trial Counsel would be under State Rule 32.1 et seq proceedings because Petitioner was represented at trial, and under direct appeal by the same attorney, and (2) Petitioner's Rule 32 post conviction counsel was ineffective for "abandoning" him in the Alabama Court under a filed "writ of cert", by removing that petition Supreme causing procedural default without any notice first to Petitioner, under this Court's ruling in Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1, 132 S.Ct. 1309, 182 L.Ed. 272 (2012)?

Whether or not during evaluations, decisions, and judgments, the United States Court of Appeals has erred in refusing to apply this United States Supreme Court's rule of Martinez as announced under the above same facts in this case, and in so doing implies the said Appeals Court refuses to allow all pro se inmates from the state of Alabama access to this United States Supreme Court's rule of law, yet, in proving this is true, the said U.S. Appeals Court has applied this ruling under Martinez to Georgia, and Florida prisoner's yet refuses to allow Alabama inmates fair review in violation of the First Amendment right of redress, or access to Federal or State Court's process in a meaningful fashion as applied through force of the Fourteenth Amendment Clause?

Whether the Alabama state courts and the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals erred in refusing to apply the Supreme Court's rule in Martinez v. Ryan