On Direct Appeal, the Appeals Court denied, neglected, avoided, and failed to document the appellants submitted evidence (appendix) and did the same for supporting case law, completely showed signs of prejudice, and to be bias against the appellant, violating his fair rights to justice, and to his fundamental constitutional rights, as it's clearly stated on Franks vs. Delaware., Whitlock vs. Brown., United States vs. Basham.,...and many other submitted case law to the appeals court, that The Fourth Amendment prohibits an affiant application for a search warrant "to knowingly and intentionally or with reckless in an disregard for the truth, make a false statement. " as well as, Due Process Clause requires the Court's to vacate the conviction in "extreme cases in which the government's conduct violates fundamental fairness. " United States v. Stinson , 647 F. 3d 1196, 1209 (9th Cir. 2011)(citiation omitted). In other words, a conviction must fall where " the conduct of law enforcement agents is so outrageous that due process principles would absolutely bar the government from invoking judicial process to obtain a conviction. " United states v. Russel , 411 U.S. 423, 431-32, 93 S.Ct. 1637, 36 L Ed. 2D 366(1973) "[Cjonvictions premised on deliberately fabricated evidence will always violate the defendants right to due process /9 Avery v. City of Milwaukee , 847 F. 3d 433,439 (7th Cir. 2017)(emphasis added); see also Mooney v. Holohan . 294 U.S. 103, 112, 55 S. Ct. 340, 79 L. Ed. 791 (1935)(explaining that the use of perjured testimony " to procure the conviction and imprisonment of a defendant is as inconsistent with the rudimentary demands of justice as is the obtaining of a like result by intimidation "); Whitlock v. Brueggemann , 682 F. 3d 567, 580 (7th Cir. 2012). Moreover, misconduct of this type that results in a conviction might also violate the accused's right to due process under the rubric of Brady v. Maryland , 373 U.S. 83, 83 S. Ct. 1194,10 L. Ed. 2D 215 (1963), and Kvles v. Whitley . 514 U.S. 419, 115 S. Ct. 1555, 131 LEd. 2d. 490(1995).

Whether the Appeals Court erred in denying, neglecting, avoiding, and failing to document the appellants' submitted evidence