I. DID THE SIXTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS ABUSE ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT CLAIMED MR. BISSNER'S APPEAL WAS FRIVOLOUS?

II. DID THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN COURT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT RE-SCREENED "HE ALREADY SCREENED BY THE EASTERN DISTRICT COURT AND THEN DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS?

III. WAS MR. BISSNER DENIED HIS DUE PROCESS OF LAW RIGHTS TO A PRELIMINARY PAROLE REVOCATION HEARING WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS PURSUANT TO MICH. COMP. L. 791.234?

IV. WAS MR. BISSNER DENIED HIS DUE PROCESS OF LAW RIGHTS TO A PAROLE REVOCATION FACT FINDING HEARING WITHIN A FORTY-FIVE (45) DAYS OF NOTICE OF VIOLATION OF PAROLE PURSUANT TO MICH. COMP. L. 791.240.a(a)?

V. IS THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN COURT CORRECT THAT THE PETITIONER PROVIDED GREATER PROTECTION THAN PAROLE REVOCATION WHEN MR. BISSNER PLED KNOWINGLY, AND INTELLIGENTLY TO NEW CHARGES WHEN WOULD HIS PAROLE REVOCATION RIGHTS?

VI. COULD MR. BISSNER INTELLIGENTLY AND UNDERSTANDINGLY GUILTY PLEAD IN THE NEW CASE WHEN HE DID NOT KNOW OF THE COLLATERAL CONSEQUENCES RIGHTS? DOES HENCE. 1, 2 PAROLE REVOCATION?

Did the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals abuse its discretion when it claimed Mr. Bissner's appeal was frivolous?