WHETHER THE LOWER COURTS ABUSED THEIR DISCRETION ERRED.
PEPPER V. UNITED STATES,
IN LIGHT OF THIS COURT'S PRECEDENT
PRECEDENT OF UNITED S
1108-111S(6THCIR.202I):AND UNITED
UMITED STATES V. MCCALL2
H1t
XIS 6567,17-18(5AN.1272022),WHEN
STATES V. WATKINS-2O22 U.S. DIST
THEY DISREGARDEDYIGNORED FAILED TO CONSIDER THE
PETITIONER'S
SENTENCE AND IN-CUSTODY REHABILITATION? IF SO, WHETHER THE
RDINARY OR COMPEULING REASONS WARRANTING A SENTENCE REDUC
TION BECAUSE THE DISTRICT COURT'S S 3SSBCA) ANALYSIS WAS SUFFICRELEASE MOTIONS?"
STATES V. RODRIQUEZSS3
U.S.377 38Q-90 (200ED; CARACHURI-ROSENDO
U. HOLDER S6O U.S.S63JS
130'5.Ct. 2577177 L.Ed.2d 68(2010)5AND
REHAIF V. UNITED STATES139 S.C.219I-2OH L.Ed.2d S94 (2OLQ) INCLUDING
LOUISO O MBR LIWMO OL KOION D JO SWIT BHL
OFFICIALS, MEETS THE
-CRITERIA OF EXTRAORDINARY AND COMPEUING
TION? IFSO,WHETHER
THE LOWER COURTS ABUSED THEIR DISCRETD."WHETHER, IN LIGHT OF THE LAW OF 1B U.S.C. &BOOGA AND THE U.S.
CONSTITUTIONAL SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO THE EFFECTIVE
ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL,THE PETITIONER'S RIEHTS TO THE EFFECTIVE
ASSISTANGE OF COUNSEL WERE VIOLATED BY THE COURT APPOINTED
AND APPEAL AS OF RIGHT? IF SO WHETHER THE LOWER COURTS ABUSED
IROISNINA NE N O DI
ASSISTANCE AT AUL?"

Whether the lower courts abused their discretion and erred in light of Supreme Court precedent