- Whether the Ninth Circuit abused it's discretion finding Petitioner had not
shown excusable neglect for not filing his Notice of Appeal in the District
within 30 days if the District Court decision(filing it 3 days late),
FRAP 4(a)(5)(A), when the District Court was refusing to provide him a copy
of the request for certificate of appealability filed in its court, despite
Covid modified program forcing him to file his only copy , deprived of copy
ing services by the prison law library, causing him to be preoccupied with
recreating the argument, and given that he had mistakenly filed the request
for an extension of time in a separate case brought by him, prematurely, jaj
result of a mix —up. With the District Court accepting the late filing,Court
Art. VI, § 1 to rect- - Whether the state court was duty bound by Cal. Const.
ify constitutional error by exercising it's Article III jurisdiction invok
ing upon the state legislatures power under Cal. Const. Art. IV, § 1 to in-
in habeas proceedings in order to expand Fourteenth Amendment pro
tected classes to include "different persons" being treated equal, as thetervene
circumstances warrant;

- Whether 28 USC § 2254(d)(1) is unconstitutional if it would deprive District
Courts ability to effect a remedy by demanding it exercise it s Article III
jurisdiction to invoke the California legislatures interference to expand
the protected class to include "different persons being treated equal, when
the circumstances warrant, with Tigner v. Texas extending an invitation.

Whether the Ninth Circuit abused its discretion in finding that the petitioner had not shown excusable neglect for not filing his Notice of Appeal within 30 days