Concerning procedures of the District and Courts of Appeals regarding due process in federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 60(b) motions as well as a District Courts unquestionable authority to manage its own docket vs. the Anti-Terrorism and Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA, 28 U.S.C. §2255), Clay v. U.S., 537 U.S. 599, 123 S.Ct. 1603).

Mr. Walker presents the questions that follows:

1) Did congress, with the enactment of 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and the AEDPA, provide also that a District Courts unquestionable authority to manage its own docket (Alleged in some cases extend the Statute of limitations) without Consideration of the provisions as prescribed?

2) Could a Court of Appeals violate a Movants on the merits after the government Concedes and the Appellate Court agrees that the District Court erred?

3) When Such Collateral proceeding was the First place to challenge a Conviction on Statute of the denial of effective assistance of counsel?

Did Congress, with the enactment of 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and the AEDPA, provide District Courts with unquestionable authority to manage their own docket and, in some cases, extend the statute of limitations without consideration of the provisions as prescribed in the AEDPA?