QUESTON NUMBER ONE:
Whether the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals abused its discretion
by Summarily Affirmance of Petitioner Patel's 2241 Writ of Habeas
Corpus Petition without conducting a de novo review, thus, did this
violate Mr. Patel's Procedural Due Process of Law Rights ?

QUESTION NUMBER TWO:
Whether the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals abused its discretion
by affirming the district court's procedural denial decision in regard
to Ground I and Ground VII in which relies upon "newly discovered
evidence," thus, are these claims cognizable under the savings
clause of 28 U.S.C. 2255 (e) ?

QUESTION NUMBER THREE:
Whether the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals abused its
discretion by affirming the district court's procedural denial decision
regarding Grounds II, III, IV, VI, VIII, IX, X, XI, and XII, thus, are those
claims cognizable under the savings clause of 28 U.S.C. 2255 (e), relying
upon Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1 (2012); and Trevino v. Thaler, 569
U.S. 413 (2013) to excuse Patel's procedural default ?

QUESTION NUMBER FOUR:
Whether the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals abused its
discretion by affirming the district court's procedural denial decision
regarding Ground Five in which relies upon an "statutory
interpretation" in Rosemond v. United States, 572 U.S. 65 (2014),
thus, he stands "actually innocent" of Cts. 2-14, Health Care Fraud,
Aiding & Abetting and Cts. 16-34, Distribution of Controlled Substances,
Aiding & Abetting, therefore, is such claim cognizable via the savings
clause of 28 U.S.C. 2255 (e) ?

Whether the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals abused its discretion