1) Did the US Appeals court Abuse their discretion in its delay and subsequent denial of mandamus relief to the Kendall "<

2) Does the Novelty doctrine Precedence of this Courts Caalerets v. Clore 60 US.) exe, which this petitioner requests to be supplemented with his SADA Writ of Habeas Corpus as a claim for relief, the d Motion to incorporate his pet Appeal claims DROP to be the US Appeds culixg hold weight sufficient terFace Cx that it hoyle howe Urged the VS Appeals act/respovol TASTER onc vied The warner uoith More SCruH NY Soamst its holding Br mecit Qerering MnRooctall LLsbeas relre® ap his Fevor 2

3) Does the Coulee v bide G60 US Sal SCA low holol du) eobctiry Sethe more,does, #8 Hest Amoudmext protections) covr|stretch 40, SA. Odin isbrotive ausermt dtton's Be punishment such as 6 Porns|Nianid Parole Boar Jecluical yrolation ?

4) May His oct review te report $ récammundatronsor 4 co.) U.S.MA. See 23-1357 (EDPA) Which was clociolacl on Feb 26% 0004; AFTER He U-S Appeals denial ok Maidouus rehePos Feb $4, IBad.— however, PEFORE Mr Rinclall receiveol the Mevdemus decison) Avchorder id the mail to beable to appeal or Flee Himoly rehedri0g ¢

4S) 'Does thic Court ooree with } dlisag ree with Peansy van — "1d Parale Raaral's Sssessment ond clecision that Mn 'KowdallS statements (which he was violateal Yer) Coe a nt ASL onda First Amand nadt Protections i he Bee of Couslermen v. Colerolr; dos ¥¥S monchale 6 Vacating oP te parole violston Ouch his release Hom covkine ment >

Oy did fhe District Court misanply /iis construct my 8am Ito B SAASY WrtoF Hobeas Ys Pareitg, stole couch exhaustous before they Ossume] imnoke. sprisdicton $

@) Nay Hiss coocrreneun my poly S225) (SE (era) 2

1) Are. USMS. | Diskick Conch Redoct & Kecommendation Ceasion(s) by [20, Sabato ond Court rules Sppedleble DITRECTLY te this Coon Wad the Petitioner believes the evidladice dud the recorch/ histo ok his/her case Sack claims Combined eh, Soprene Conch (yssch\ orececlest= lal Cases Contradicts the US-Dishict M.A.s deter minshan 2 douldit be S | iter locutory C

2» Does Las pethoners [ect ality

Whether the U.S. District Court's determination to dismiss the petitioner's case contradicts Supreme Court precedent