WHETHER OR NOT MR. RICHARDSON'S SPECIAL PLEA TO THE LOWER COURTS LACK OF FACTUAL DEDICATE THUS DECISION PURSUANT TO WARS UNOPPOSED FED P. CH /, P 12(b)(1) MOTION COULD NOT BE ADJUDICATED BECAUSE THE LOWER COURTS DECIDED THAT RICHARDSON DID NOT MEET THE SAVINGS CLAUSE JURISDICTION PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C § 2255(C)?

WHETHER THE CIRCUITS SPLIT ON CONGRESS INTENT PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C § 2255 (C) SAVINGS CLAUSE TO BE TREATED AS THUS DICTIONAL IN NATURE THUS, EQUIVALENT TO THAT OF SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION OR WHETHER THE SAVINGS CLAUSE IS A CLAIM PROCESSING RULE THAT MUST BE DECIDED AFTER AND NOT BEFORE THE COURT ESTABLISHES SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION?

WHETHER THE APPELLANT COURTS AFFIRMATIVE DECISION TO DISMISS MR. RICHARDSON'S HABEAS PETITION PRESUMABLY PURSUANT TO FED R. CIV. P 12(B)(K) ON THE BASIS THAT HE FAILED TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION UPON WHICH RELIEF COULD BE GRANTED UNDER 28 2255(CC) SAVINGS CLAUSE NOTWITHSTANDING, MR. RICHARDSON DEMONSTRATED A CREDIBLE SHOWING OF ACTUAL INNOCENCE OF THE SUBSTANTIVE OFFENSE CHARGED IN COUNT 2 OF HIS INDICTMENT VIOLATED HIS CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT RIGHTS?

Whether the lower court's lack of factual predicate jurisdiction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) motion could not be adjudicated