Did petitioner have a complete fair denovo review of his legal findings that Kayla Noel- Emsweller, et.al., and defendants deny him his constitutional eighth amendment right to equal protection under the law and to be fairly sentenced under correct statutes, acts and accredited time served of 1,888 days, with good time, as all other inmates are treated as such.

Did petitioner Harmon have a constitutional right under, Fed. R. App. P. Rule 40 (a) to a complete rehearing en banc by all the active judges of the court to get a complete unbias decision according to law, after Harmon petitioned for this rehearing En Banc, at which the Eighth Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed U.S. District Court of Eastern District of Arkansas- Central Division -(4:22- CV-00629-BRW),without addressing the true particulars presented by Harmon, to warrant their decision to affirm the district court summarily.

Whether petitioner stated with particulars the points of law and facts that the courts over-looked and misapprehended, when the court specifically failed to acknowledge the Bosnick Rule, see Bosnick v. Lockhart, 283 Ark 206,672 S.W. 2d 52 (1984), in failing to have defendants to produce factual documentation to support their allegations that plaintiff / petitioner was in fact sentenced under the correct acts, statutes and accredited time served of 1,888 days, with good time credit, accredited towards his complete sentence, as the record can and did reflect that an audit was completed on July 01, 2020 by ADC - Arkansas Division Corrections records department, C. Rushing, totally contradicting Kayla Noel- Emsweller's e-mail to records personal Ms. Alexander of Tucker Maximum Security Unit.

Did records supervisor Kayla Noel-Emsweller, Director Dexter Payne, ADC Secretary Solomon Graves and Assistant Attorney General Adam Jackson, refuse to correct illegal sentence, that it was in fact illegal to sentence Harmon to Community Corrections Center-(CCC) of a presumptive sentence of 108 months at an Alternative Sanction for manslaughter and 60 months also within ADC, at which petitioner was not eligible to be sentenced as such, at which defendants failed to produce legal documentation to support that his claim was not plausible constitutionally for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Whether the U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of Arkansas saw the illegality by United State Magistrate Judge Ervin, stated considering converting this action to a habeas corpus action under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, if their was no plausible claim as stated within their earlier ruling, see ruling by Judge Billy Ray Wilson U.S. District Judge, Recommended Disposition, with Magistrate judge Ervin ruling also for 20th day of July, 2022 case NO.4:22-CV-00629-BRW-ERE, why would they even consider this if there was no illegal acts in this case, apparently their was.

Did petitioner have a complete fair denovo review of his legal findings