Michael Walker v. Josh Shapiro, Attorney General of Pennsylvania, et al.
HabeasCorpus
As a result of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania in denying Petitioner's Motion for Relief pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures, asserting his Actual innocence predicated upon his trial counsel's ineffective assistance in failing to reasonably and constitutionally the United States Court of Appeals denying Petitioner A Certificate of Appealability on basis that Petitioner's Rule 60 (b)(6) Motion for Relief was untimely filed, and, none of the issues raised in the original Habeas corpus proceedings' were not dismissed as . untimely, and, denying request for Rehearing En Banc. Therefore, the following Questions are presented:act
(A) The Questions presented is Whether the Third Circuit erred in holding that Petitioner, who asserted Actual Innocence in a Rule 60(b)(6) Motion for Relief was not entitled to relief on basis that his petition was untimely filed Is in contrary and/or conflict with its own decisional law, and/or this Court's holding involving claims of One's Actual Innocence, In Accordance to•McQuiggin v. Perkins, or, Satterfield v. District Attorney's Office of Philadelphia?J
(B) The Question presented is Whether the Third Circuit erred in holding that Petitioner, who asserted his Actual Innocence in a Rule 60(b)(6) Motion for Relief was not entitled to relief on basis that of the claims in his initial habeas corpus proceedings were dismissed as untimely, none Is in contrary and/or conflict with its own decisional law, and/or this Court's involving claims of one's Actual Innocence predicated on trial counsel's ineffectiveness assistance In Accordance to Strickland v. Washington, McQuiggin v. Perkins, Bucks v. Davis, and, Satterfield v. District Attorney's Office of Philadelphia?
(C) The Question presented Whether the Third Circuit's Decision Distorts Puls 60(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures?
Whether the Third Circuit erred in holding that a petitioner asserting actual innocence in a Rule 60(b)(6) motion was not entitled to relief on the basis that the petition was untimely filed