This case present an important nationwide issue concerning what
constitues an expeditious remedy and/or a prompt hearing under
28 U.S.C. §2254. The question(s) are: (1) what constitues "extra
ordinary circumstances," and (2) the true understanding of 28U.S.C.
§2253(c)(2). This petition represents an opportunity for the Supreme
Court to provide a more indepth definition on "extraordinary cir
cumstance" under the law, and a more indepth meaning of 28 U.S.C.
§2253(c)(2). Mr. Ealomo present the questions that follow:

(1) The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996
(AEDPA)(28 U.S.C. §2244(d)(l) established a 1-year statute
of limitation for a state prisoner's filing of a federal
habeas corpus petition (§2254), but the AEDPA is subject
to equitable tolling cases that have alleged facts that
are sufficient to satisfy the extraordinary circumstances
pror.prorig of the equitable tolling test?

(2) Does 28 U.S.C. §2244(d) provide a bright line limitation
to define the meaning of "...extraordinary circumstance.
.." in the statute?

(3) Did Congress intend to allow district courts around the
to employ inordinate delay by failing to define ".
extraordinary circumstances..." in 28 U.S.C. §2244(d)?

(4) Did Congress impermissibly delegate its law making
hority, to the U.S. district court, to determine for
themselves what extraordinary means under the law?

(5) Does the text of 28 U.S.C. §2244(d) require adherence to
Congress' intent for the statute to "provide an expedite
ious remedy for correcting erroneous sentences?

(6) Does not 28 U.S.C. §2253(c)(2) say that if applicant show
the denial of a constitutional rights, is otherwise enti
tled to the issuance of a COA?

(7) Does the text of 28 U.S.C. §2253(c)(2) require adherence
to Congress' intent for the statute to "provide an expe
ditious remedy for correcting erroneous sentences?

What constitutes an expeditious remedy and/or a prompt hearing under 28 U.S.C. §2254